PDA

View Full Version : Patriot Act extended for one year....



Blakeman
03-04-10, 12:55 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmao3Tg9nvBQeAOMAVzmeZkrmAoAD9E4QD501 (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gmao3Tg9nvBQeAOMAVzmeZkrmAoAD9E4QD501)


WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation's main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama's signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government's ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

--Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

--Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

--Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records


When are they going to let this damn thing sunset..... >:(

hawgballs
03-04-10, 01:40 AM
VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY MAD!!!
This is a dumb move.

Red_Lizard2
03-04-10, 01:50 AM
gahhhhhh, whats it going to take for someone to actually kill the damn thing?

Domestic Spying-1,0000
Your rights-0
:3

CivilWars
03-04-10, 01:53 AM
Change? Hope? Sorry, had to. ::)

jabberwock
03-04-10, 02:00 AM
Change? Hope? Sorry, had to. ::)


If everything is rosy, what is there to hope about? Sorry, had to. ::)

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:01 AM
Change? Hope? Sorry, had to. ::)


If everything is rosy, what is there to hope about? Sorry, had to. ::)


What do you know aboot American politics Captain Canadia? :P

I was just told for 4+ years how everything the almighty Bush did was wrong, and how once the messiah got in office we would see change, so where is it?

SapiensErus
03-04-10, 02:02 AM
This is almost as lame as the insurance bill.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:07 AM
I want to hear the red voters ripping his ass, where you at now?

Red_Lizard2
03-04-10, 02:16 AM
how once the messiah got in office we would see change, so where is it?


well first only conservatives insist on calling him the messiah. Outside that the biggest change:

Fox News isn't sucking the presidents cock anymore
;)

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:18 AM
Well, maybe they should be, I mean it appears what ol' Bushy did was right if the great one just signed the docs extending it. This has to suck for Trigger, Hawg, Fov, Soy, and some others around here. They now have 2 choices, admit Bush did something right, or admit Obama is as full of crap as every other politician. Decisions, decisions.

DancingCorpse
03-04-10, 02:28 AM
Well, maybe they should be, I mean it appears what ol' Bushy did was right if the great one just signed the docs extending it. This has to suck for Trigger, Hawg, Fov, Soy, and some others around here. They now have 2 choices, admit Bush did something right, or admit Obama is as full of crap as every other politician. Decisions, decisions.


I doubt any President in their right mind (now-a-days) would give that kind of power up easily.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:30 AM
Then that made it a good decision by Bush?

DancingCorpse
03-04-10, 02:32 AM
Then that made it a good decision by Bush?


I'm not defending or reprimanding either President on this 1 action. I am just sayin', to a President now-a-days, it is.....logical.

Red_Lizard2
03-04-10, 03:28 AM
Well Hawg already said its a terrible decision, Soy said it was lame. I'd fathom mst of the Obama supporters here (though agai can't say 100%) think it is a bad decision.


Corpse is also right, i don't think you'll find anyone in modern politics that wants to give up the power the office now has.

jabberwock
03-04-10, 03:49 AM
Obama's signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

Am I the only one that read that?

Not sure of the numbers in the Senate vote, but seems like it'd be more than a 2/3 majority in the house/senate. All a presidential veto would do is delay it, no?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:50 AM
Don't the dems control congress too, so now they agree with Bush too?

jabberwock
03-04-10, 04:05 AM
Don't the dems control congress too, so now they agree with Bush too?


Looks like they're politicians to me! I hate 'em!

jabberwock
03-04-10, 04:11 AM
Also,



Don't the dems control congress too, so now they agree with Bush too?


You wanted change... ...and you've still got hope that one day the patriot act will be put to bed. ;)

2/2, Civ.

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 04:14 AM
Change? Hope? Sorry, had to. ::)


I guess liberal hippie doesn't apply anymore, huh Civil?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 04:15 AM
To whom? Obama? My claim all along, too bad search doesn't work, was that he wouldn't do anything different, and so far for the most part I seem to be correct.

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 04:18 AM
Change? Hope? Sorry, had to. ::)


If everything is rosy, what is there to hope about? Sorry, had to. ::)


What do you know aboot American politics Captain Canadia? :P

I was just told for 4+ years how everything the almighty Bush did was wrong, and how once the messiah got in office we would see change, so where is it?


Health care reform, I would consider that change.

Nonetheless, I am opposed to this extension of the Patriot Act. Yet you still seem stung by the election of Obama as President. I, for one, did not vote for him b/c I thought he was perfect. I voted for him b/c I felt and still feel he was the better choice. You use black and white comparisons in a childish way, Civil. If the change isn't absolutely, 100% change, then what was promoted during the election must have been all lies and bullshit?

He was trying to get elected, so of course like all candidates he's going to promise the world. That being said, he's still miles better than Bush and McCain the tk'er. A lot of the problems that Obama is dealing with and conversely the limitations he has deal with have to do with the Bush Legacy ( 2 wars, economy, Guatanomo). Your simplistic approach to disliking Obama shows immaturity.

Did you really vote for Palin? :'(

CivilWars
03-04-10, 04:25 AM
When did he sign that bill? Guess I missed that one. ;)

CivilWars
03-04-10, 04:34 AM
So then you admit the Patriot Act, enacted by Bush, is a good thing? If no then why is it being extended?

DancingCorpse
03-04-10, 04:38 AM
So then you admit the Patriot Act, enacted by Bush, is a good thing? If no then why is it being extended?


I wonder if there are any hard facts out there proving the Patriot Act at being effective or ineffective at preventing Terrorist activities.

That would certainly sway my thoughts on the Act.

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 04:41 AM
So then you admit the Patriot Act, enacted by Bush, is a good thing? If no then why is it being extended?


There's a third option. The Patriot Act was wrong and the extension of it, even by the person I voted for, is wrong.

See Civil, unlike you, I don't agree with everything the person I voted for does or did. It's called an imperfect world but it's still better than the alternative.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 04:42 AM
That is all I wanted to hear, and I agree.

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 04:44 AM
When did he sign that bill? Guess I missed that one. ;)


That's not a prerequisite to the desire for change. Obama can forward and craft the idea but he can't guarantee it's passage. That might be difficult for you to comprehend though. It's not a dictatorship, it's an elected demorcacy so it's passage or defeat will rest with many people.

That being said, I hope reconciliation is used to allow the majority to pass this bill.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 04:52 AM
So then you admit the Patriot Act, enacted by Bush, is a good thing? If no then why is it being extended?


There's a third option. The Patriot Act was wrong and the extension of it, even by the person I voted for, is wrong.

See Civil, unlike you, I don't agree with everything the person I voted for does or did. It's called an imperfect world but it's still better than the alternative.


When did I ever say everything Bush did was right? I seem to recall agreeing with you on many items you disagreed with. However, I also recall you saying that Bush did nothing positive/good in his time in office, so that means if Obama decides to continue something Bush began he is double screwing up, one for not seeing the error, and two for continuing the error. Either that, or maybe Bush did do some things right?

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 04:58 AM
So then you admit the Patriot Act, enacted by Bush, is a good thing? If no then why is it being extended?


There's a third option. The Patriot Act was wrong and the extension of it, even by the person I voted for, is wrong.

See Civil, unlike you, I don't agree with everything the person I voted for does or did. It's called an imperfect world but it's still better than the alternative.


When did I ever say everything Bush did was right? I seem to recall agreeing with you on many items you disagreed with. However, I also recall you saying that Bush did nothing positive/good in his time in office, so that means if Obama decides to continue something Bush began he is double screwing up, one for not seeing the error, and two for continuing the error. Either that, or maybe Bush did do some things right?


Of course Bush did some things right, the Patriot Act not being one of them. The problem with Bush was that his screw-ups were really bad (Iraq, Katrina, tax cuts for the rich). In comparison, Clinton's biggest knock was he got a blowjob in the White House by someone other than his wife.

Big difference.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 05:00 AM
Well, I guess we can overlook having Osama in crosshairs and saying no need?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 05:03 AM
The problem I see is that hindsight is always 20/20. If, and I know now it is just an if, Saddam had WMDs, and used them, and we did nothing to prevent it you would be griping why didn't we do anything as well, and blaming Bush for it too.

flame
03-04-10, 08:55 AM
still ignorantly blaming bush for katrina.... The approval was well in advance, teams were mobilized and ready. The state of LA failed and it had nothing to do with bush, but I guess stupidity blinds.

ninja|oaklandr
03-04-10, 09:23 AM
Extending this was a bad idea. >:(



still ignorantly blaming bush for katrina.... The approval was well in advance, teams were mobilized and ready. The state of LA failed and it had nothing to do with bush, but I guess stupidity blinds.


There were failures at all levels of local, state and federal.

Who appointed Brown as the director of FEMA? Why did he resign right away?

Nothing to do with Bush huh http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/13/katrina.washington/index.html

Kraker Jak
03-04-10, 09:32 AM
first off, The topic of this thread. I love the patriot act, and hope they keep it around forever.





Extending this was a bad idea. >:(



still ignorantly blaming bush for katrina.... The approval was well in advance, teams were mobilized and ready. The state of LA failed and it had nothing to do with bush, but I guess stupidity blinds.


There were failures at all levels of local, state and federal.

Who appointed Brown as the director of FEMA? Why did he resign right away?

Nothing to do with Bush huh http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/13/katrina.washington/index.html


Really? The federal government failed because a hurricane hit the US?


1 week before the storm hit, i remember sitting there watching it, saying "those people better leave" and I remember stupid ass new orleanians gettin on TV saying "This is my home, I not leaving maury" or whatever.....

You knew the storm was coming, you KNEW you had to leave, you KNEW the levees wouldnt hold...but lets blame bush and FEMA...GTFO

jmw_man
03-04-10, 09:42 AM
315 to 97, apparently the house doesn't think it's such a bad thing? Why is TTP so different?

Highstakes72
03-04-10, 09:42 AM
Wow...a few things worth pointing out...

1.We do not exist as a democracy.... https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
2.Trigger admits that we live in an imperfect world, but disagrees with measure meant to protect people from the effects of that world.
3.There seems to be a belief that somehow we are not being attacked or exploited as a nation every single day by entities outside and inside of our own borders. I find that notion factually inadequate, but naive as well.

How about the malcontents bitch about something useful for once...like how foreigners can submit FOIA requests for the declassification of information, and in fact do, to such a degree that it causes breakdown in the system and needless release of sensitive information.

jason_jinx
03-04-10, 09:50 AM
315 to 97, apparently the house doesn't think it's such a bad thing? Why is TTP so different?


lol

Its all about location.


You could go to Berkley and find 85% of the pop wants the patriot act banished. Then you can head off the the good ol boy territory and find them supporting big government by backing the patriot act.
Maybe they will think differently about if D.C. ever uses the patriot act to rally up all civilian fire arms.

Fovezer
03-04-10, 10:13 AM
Well, maybe they should be, I mean it appears what ol' Bushy did was right if the great one just signed the docs extending it. This has to suck for Trigger, Hawg, Fov, Soy, and some others around here. They now have 2 choices, admit Bush did something right, or admit Obama is as full of crap as every other politician. Decisions, decisions.

Such childish reasoning. As trigger said, just because we voted for the guy doesn't mean we think he is perfect and will agree with whatever he does, so keep your delusions to yourself. I am still happy he is in office, though, because the other choice would have been McCain, and that would be disastrous. Bush and the Republicans rammed this privacy-stealing bill through a few months after 9/11. Congress passed and Obama signed extensions to some parts of the bill. I don't agree with either, but it is obviously not comparable and if Bush didn't sign the bill, there would be nothing to extend.

I did find this part interesting, though: "The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government's authority to spy on Americans and seize their records."

Once again, Republicans not giving a shit about the American people, yet some people still insist on voting for them.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 10:30 AM
Well, maybe they should be, I mean it appears what ol' Bushy did was right if the great one just signed the docs extending it. This has to suck for Trigger, Hawg, Fov, Soy, and some others around here. They now have 2 choices, admit Bush did something right, or admit Obama is as full of crap as every other politician. Decisions, decisions.
Or how about this one? Bush is still going to go down in history as the worst president in history. And Obama is going to be known to extend the patriot act for a year. Yes I hate that he did it..... But there is alot of catching up to do, in order to paint Obama with the "Bush idiocy paintbrush"...... There are more than just your lame ass choices.

Now if he had made the Patriot Act permanent, then you might be on to something.... But he didn't, so you are not.

rock_lobster
03-04-10, 10:45 AM
still ignorantly blaming bush for katrina.... The approval was well in advance, teams were mobilized and ready. The state of LA failed and it had nothing to do with bush, but I guess stupidity blinds.


This comes up like every other week, and being from LA, I would have to say I wouldn't exactly pin the blame on either local or federal. You go into this situation thinking you're going into a simple search and rescue for the citizens stranded in the city. But what you really find out is that as you are flying over head, you are being shot at by said citizens. Were they unprepared? For being shot at, and having to basically treat new orleans post katrina as a war zone, then yes, very unprepared....but I can't blame them for not having a plan where people bitching to be rescued now shoot at the rescuers. Both local and federal had plans set up, albeit they weren't perfect.

Anyways, back onto the subject at hand...the actual Patriot Act. There are so many grey/gray (sp?) areas for me. What are the stipulations of having your phones tapped, records looked at, etc....? The ultimate goal is admirable, but it isn't worth infringing upon people's rights. Does the end justify the means?

I've had a hard time getting solid answers on what EXACTLY the patriot act does. Some say it a simple protective measure and others bark that is the government controlling our phones and listening in on the phone sex we are having every night. Which is it?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 10:51 AM
Well, maybe they should be, I mean it appears what ol' Bushy did was right if the great one just signed the docs extending it. This has to suck for Trigger, Hawg, Fov, Soy, and some others around here. They now have 2 choices, admit Bush did something right, or admit Obama is as full of crap as every other politician. Decisions, decisions.
Or how about this one? Bush is still going to go down in history as the worst president in history. And Obama is going to be known to extend the patriot act for a year. Yes I hate that he did it..... But there is alot of catching up to do, in order to paint Obama with the "Bush idiocy paintbrush"...... There are more than just your lame ass choices.

Now if he had made the Patriot Act permanent, then you might be on to something.... But he didn't, so you are not.


Ok, I will hope that next year he changes his mind and rescinds it. Once again, I never said Bush was perfect, and never said everything Obama did was wrong. However, I do recall posts, and if search worked would find them, where all three of you said there was nothing good done during Bush's term, NOTHING. Your words, not mine. My words all before and during the election were it is easy to preach change when trying to get elected, but if he truly supported change he would have repealed the Patriot Act, not extended. Does one, two, three, even four issues make me hate him? Nope, but as I said all along meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Seeing as how he is doing the same things you all criticized Bush for funny how you defend him when he does it. No, no double standard here, just move on.

Highstakes72
03-04-10, 10:57 AM
To Rocks points let talk abou the Patriot Act. Are people really upset that the conversation that they have with another person across lines and equipment they DO NOT OWN might be heard by someone else? :D

You (p) do not own the telecommunications infrastructure. You agree to terms of use with every contract and I bet NOWHERE in said contracts/agreements are you guaranteed privacy, for one its technically impossible to issue that guarantee. So in essence some people are pissed because the omnidirectional cellular transmissions are being screened? Wake up, your holding a f%$king radio.

Blakeman
03-04-10, 11:01 AM
Now if he had made the Patriot Act permanent, then you might be on to something.... But he didn't, so you are not.


Let's hope that he doesn't make it permanent.

Jason there are a lot of 'good ole boys' that do not like the patriot act and part of the reason that independents are on the rise. Yeah there are 'republicans till I die' just like there are dems the same way, but I don't think painting with such a broad stroke is factual.


I need to do some research and see if there was anything else attached to this bill that made a lot of our little turds in Congress vote it through.

edit: Motherfuckers attached it to the fucking Senate jobs bill.... the one that pays workers for fixing highways etc....

According to Fox....
http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/09/fox-obtains-senate-jobs-bill-outline/


Fox obtains a copy of the parameters of the Senate jobs bill emerging from bipartisan negotiations. One note of caution -- there are many moving parts here; items from different cmtes of jurisdictions.

The Finance Cmte portion --- meaning all stuff related to TAXES -- has the agreement of top cmte Republican Chuck Grassley and senior cmte member Orrin Hatch., according to sources

The rest is still TBD.

Sen Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, said Tuesday that most of his members haven't seen the bill.

BUT --- Republicans are sure to like that Dems gave up their intention to pay for any part of this bill with TARP bailout funds.

SENATE JOBS BILL

Cost- $85 billion

Will include:

· Hiring tax credits (close to Schumer/Hatch proposal to allow employers an exemption of payroll taxes if they hire new employees)

· Infrastructure (Build America Bonds, 1 year extension of highway trust fund)- total for this is $15 billion

· Tax extenders ($35 billion, just date changes to extend from 2009 to 2010)

· Unemployment insurance 3 month extension, COBRA 3 month extension, Doc Fix 7 month extension ($35 billion total)

· Flood insurance extension

· Patriot Act 1 year extension

· Small business (waiving fees for small business loans)

· Satellite Homeowner Act 5 year fix

· $1.5 billion ag disaster funding for Lincoln and Cochran

I'm going to look up the votes by Senator and post them once I find the damn things.

rock_lobster
03-04-10, 11:05 AM
So if we want to extend the patriot act...why can't we just have ONE FUCKING BILL FOR IT!!! Why does there have to be random ass shit stuck in those bills. Why can't we just draft something to extend the patriot act and draft something else to get the other things accomplished? This is how shit gets fucked up.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 11:06 AM
You scratch my balls, I scratch yours, it is the way it has always been done. They all suck, get over it.

rock_lobster
03-04-10, 11:06 AM
You scratch my balls, I scratch yours, it is the way it has always been done. They all suck, get over it.


But I don't wanna :'(

Blakeman
03-04-10, 11:17 AM
You scratch my balls, I scratch yours, it is the way it has always been done. They all suck, get over it.


But I don't wanna :'(


No, you don't understand, we as the public only count when they need our votes we don't do the scratching or get scratched. All that scratching is just warm up to put it in our pooper hard and deep....


They do all suck, but I will never 'get over it'. :-\

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 11:53 AM
To Rocks points let talk abou the Patriot Act. Are people really upset that the conversation that they have with another person across lines and equipment they DO NOT OWN might be heard by someone else? :D

You (p) do not own the telecommunications infrastructure. You agree to terms of use with every contract and I bet NOWHERE in said contracts/agreements are you guaranteed privacy, for one its technically impossible to issue that guarantee. So in essence some people are pissed because the omnidirectional cellular transmissions are being screened? Wake up, your holding a f%$king radio.


This is complete bullshit. Are you actually trying to justify the erosion of our civil liberties just b/c it's possible to do so? In other words, our government should be allowed to wire tap our phones w/o a warrant b/c it's technically possible?

So I should be able to hit you if you're within my punches range.

Blakeman
03-04-10, 11:55 AM
To Rocks points let talk abou the Patriot Act. Are people really upset that the conversation that they have with another person across lines and equipment they DO NOT OWN might be heard by someone else? :D

You (p) do not own the telecommunications infrastructure. You agree to terms of use with every contract and I bet NOWHERE in said contracts/agreements are you guaranteed privacy, for one its technically impossible to issue that guarantee. So in essence some people are pissed because the omnidirectional cellular transmissions are being screened? Wake up, your holding a f%$king radio.


This is complete bullshit. Are you actually trying to justify the erosion of our civil liberties just b/c it's possible to do so? In other words, our government should be allowed to wire tap our phones w/o a warrant b/c it's technically possible?

So I should be able to hit you if you're within my punches range.




Trigger, this is in my opinion the most intelligent thing you have posted all year.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:01 PM
Seeing as how he is doing the same things you all criticized Bush for funny how you defend him when he does it. No, no double standard here, just move on.
Who is defending this? I certainly am not. But on the same note, he making this mistake does not put him anywhere near as catastrophic as George Bush, which was one of the the only two option you made available in your silly post. Of which I don't agree with either of your options. That isn't me defending Obama while "acting just like Bush", I voiced my disagreement with it, but I don't see this mistake as being on par with the retardation of the Bush era.

But what should Obama have done, Civil?

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:07 PM
So after finding out how this came to pass....... As in, it was snuck into another bill that had a supermajority vote it through,....... How is this falling into the presidents hands, Civil?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 12:09 PM
Seeing as how he is doing the same things you all criticized Bush for funny how you defend him when he does it. No, no double standard here, just move on.
Who is defending this? I certainly am not. But on the same note, he making this mistake does not put him anywhere near as catastrophic as George Bush, which was one of the the only two option you made available in your silly post. Of which I don't agree with either of your options. That isn't me defending Obama while "acting just like Bush", I voiced my disagreement with it, but I don't see this mistake as being on par with the retardation of the Bush era.

But what should Obama have done, Civil?


All I am asking for is that when he makes mistakes, as he has, that you rip his ass like you do anyone from the right. You said before the election that if he screws up you will be just as harsh, so where is the venom you had for Bush? I am not saying everything he has done is wrong, but if McCain were in office, and extended the patriot act, or hired some ex-Halliburton employee/lobbyist as an advisor you would have a 10 paragraph post about how shitty it is, so all I am asking for is the same treatment for Barry, or are you telling me 2 sentences is all you would have for Palin? I seriously doubt it.

He signed the shit, and HE has everyone he wants for the most part in Congress, so I though he was going to get "his plan" in place?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 12:12 PM
For the record I don't agree with the Patriot Act either, but I didn't agree with it when Bush was in office either. I didn't yell from the rooftops how terrible it was then, and I am not doing it now. My ONLY response is asking those that ripped Bush about it to rip equally to their guy, but no, it's ok, give him time, it's not his fault, blah, blah, blah, divide and conquer BS, just like when Bush was in office. WE are smarter than that, yet WE let them do it to us.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:16 PM
Like I said, this mistake isn't as meritoriously as dumb or catastrophic as what Bush did or Palin would have been. And besides that, how does the responsibility rest on Obama's shoulders? It was slipped into Senate jobs bill with supermajority support.

Explain to me what I should be all up in arms about, as if he needlessly invaded a sovereign country under false pretenses.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:17 PM
For the record I don't agree with the Patriot Act either, but I didn't agree with it when Bush was in office either. I didn't yell from the rooftops how terrible it was then, and I am not doing it now. My ONLY response is asking those that ripped Bush about it to rip equally to their guy, but no, it's ok, give him time, it's not his fault, blah, blah, blah, divide and conquer BS, just like when Bush was in office. WE are smarter than that, yet WE let them do it to us.
Again, how is he involved? How does the responsibility lie with him?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 12:23 PM
Well, let's see, WE were promised more transparency, yet this part is a tag line on a much larger bill. WE were promised lobbyist reform, yet that was vetoed day 3. WE were promised many things, yet regularly I see votes/bills/laws/changes that are contradictory to what was promised in the campaign. The bigger issue I have is when I see these things, and when I see someone bring it up, it is glazed over as necessary/justified/not as bad as someone else.

As I have said 100 times before, they are ALL liars, and could care less about you/me/us/we unless it comes down to us keeping their ass in office.

What is the answer? It's not reps, it's not dems, and it's probably not some third party because if they had the same power as the top two they would be just as bad. Sadly I don't have an answer, but if I did I probably wouldn't be sitting here talking about it on TTP, I would be out doing it.

PS - Then how does the responsibility lie with Bush for all the bills congress passed and Bush just signed?

Blakeman
03-04-10, 12:25 PM
For the record I don't agree with the Patriot Act either, but I didn't agree with it when Bush was in office either. I didn't yell from the rooftops how terrible it was then, and I am not doing it now. My ONLY response is asking those that ripped Bush about it to rip equally to their guy, but no, it's ok, give him time, it's not his fault, blah, blah, blah, divide and conquer BS, just like when Bush was in office. WE are smarter than that, yet WE let them do it to us.
Again, how is he involved? How does the responsibility lie with him?



He is the final say in it and can veto, that is how it is supposed to work. He can then blame the loss of days of pay for the dept of transportation employees around the country on his Senate who added the amendment into the bill.

I don't think he did because he wanted to look good giving money to the transportation employees and all the other provisions in the original bill, rather than it waste time going through the cycle.

Everyone has their faults, this is an example of liberties being stomped on because of the game of politics as it is played with our many times faulty system of law making.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:38 PM
PS - Then how does the responsibility lie with Bush for all the bills congress passed and Bush just signed?
Like what bills? The patriot act that his administration designed and supported? or the ruinous tax breaks for the rich that he and his administration wrote, supported and tried to make permanent? Or any of the other thousands of bill that he didn't veto for his first 6 years in office?

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:39 PM
Blake, it isn't a loss of a days pay. It is loss of jobs. That ruins lives.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:41 PM
BTW, how did your search for "who slipped in the amendment to this jobs bill and who voted on it" go? I would love to see who sponsored it and who voted for it.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 12:41 PM
PS - Then how does the responsibility lie with Bush for all the bills congress passed and Bush just signed?
Like what bills? The patriot act that his administration designed and supported? or the ruinous tax breaks for the rich that he and his administration wrote, supported and tried to make permanent? Or any of the other thousands of bill that he didn't veto for his first 6 years in office?


The street goes both ways. Doesn't he have "his" congress in place? How about the offer to not have a state, some states, some people, whatever pay for services just to get his health care bill passed? It is the same bullshit you were griping about before, just now it is ok because of what party he is in?

Blakeman
03-04-10, 12:46 PM
Blake, it isn't a loss of a days pay. It is loss of jobs. That ruins lives.


I understand, but that would be the Senates fault for the amendment, not his. His senate is made up of most of his party though, thus the pass.

The jobs were already put on hold before this one got put through because they had so much else going on if I read everything properly.


http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=2&vote=00025

Here is the vote count on what I think is the bill, but I can't find the specifics on the patriot act extension, even though all the media including the AP says it is in there.


Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---70
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Burris (D-IL)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---28
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting - 2
Hutchison (R-TX)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:52 PM
PS - Then how does the responsibility lie with Bush for all the bills congress passed and Bush just signed?
Like what bills? The patriot act that his administration designed and supported? or the ruinous tax breaks for the rich that he and his administration wrote, supported and tried to make permanent? Or any of the other thousands of bill that he didn't veto for his first 6 years in office?


The street goes both ways. Doesn't he have "his" congress in place? How about the offer to not have a state, some states, some people, whatever pay for services just to get his health care bill passed? It is the same bullshit you were griping about before, just now it is ok because of what party he is in?
Apples and oranges pal. Like I said, your guy was involved in those bills passing and supported their passing.

Now show me where Obama or his staff is involved in the PA extension, give me something that places anybody from his administration advocating permanence or even ]supporting the extension itself. Then you might get some traction, otherwise what you are comparing is an apple and an orange.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 12:54 PM
Look at the votes right above you. All Dems but ONE voted YAY, and that ONE abstained. Shit doesn't pass without Dem approval, including Obama, right now.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 12:58 PM
Blake, it isn't a loss of a days pay. It is loss of jobs. That ruins lives.

I understand, but that would be the Senates fault for the amendment, not his. His senate is made up of most of his party though, thus the pass.

The jobs were already put on hold before this one got put through because they had so much else going on if I read everything properly.
The pass, with veto proof majority on the bill. how would Obama's veto made any difference other than delaying the inevitable of the bill passing. Thus possibly costing people their livelihood?

So let me get this straight, if he vetoes the bill, all he is doing is displaying his displeasure and pointing blame at the Senate as well as costing people jobs(a basic display of politics). If he doesn't veto the bill, he is seen as being as complicit as Bush was in writing the Patriot Act, even though the extension was a amendment to a jobs bill?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 01:00 PM
No, veto the bill, tell them to get the shitty add ons out of it, then send it back to me. No job loss, make congress do their job, provide the change and transparency he stood on.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 01:00 PM
Look at the votes right above you. All Dems but ONE voted YAY, and that ONE abstained. Shit doesn't pass without Dem approval, including Obama, right now.
Of course it was Dem majority on the vote. It was a jobs bill. Now one must wonder who added the extension amendment and who voted for it.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 01:01 PM
No, veto the bill, tell them to get the shitty add ons out of it, then send it back to me. No job loss, make congress do their job, provide the change and transparency he stood on.
In which case, the bill comes back the same way it weas vetoed, because why? Ah, yes, supermajority.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 01:02 PM
In the mean time, innocent people's lives get ruined?

hawgballs
03-04-10, 01:03 PM
Who added the amendment? And who voted for it?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 01:03 PM
I fuckin' give. You are smarter than this. Your stance is that everything that happened under Bush is Bush's fault, and now everything that happens under Obama is still somehow Bush's fault. Yet you want to point fingers at the reps for defending their man. Priceless.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 01:07 PM
That's the whole damn problem with the system. Why is the Patriot Act, and who knows what the hell else, tagged to a jobs bill in the first place? Yet again you scratch my back and I scratch yours. I don't give a crap which side did what, they are all trying to bend us over, and last I checked I didn't see any government contract bids for KY.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 01:16 PM
I fuckin' give. You are smarter than this. Your stance is that everything that happened under Bush is Bush's fault, and now everything that happens under Obama is still somehow Bush's fault. Yet you want to point fingers at the reps for defending their man. Priceless.
What is priceless, is your lack of a sense of context.

One guy's administration wrote and supported bad things, as well as camapigned for their permanence. Another guy has to make a choice, fuck up people's livelihoods to veto a bill that will return exactly the same way, or hold his nose and sign something that has a rotten apple in it.

When Obama invades a country for no reason, while bankrupting our country and ruining our economy, or when he erodes even more our civil liberties, or when Joe Biden's former company gets billions in no bid contracts. When you see someone from his administration supporting offshoring jobs or supporting our ports being controlled by a company owned by the UAE.... then you'll see a longer post as to how mad I am am. But when you present this shit as tantamount to what I have mentioned and expect any more than what I gave, which initially was displeasure, until the facts came out that 1)it was amended to a Senate jobs bill 2)that jobs bill passed by super-majority..... Now in light of those facts, Obama is less culpable than originally thought.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 01:19 PM
It doesn't matter what the issue is. Where is your outrage over signing a bill within minutes of it passing without the time HE promised for the public to read it? i never saw your complaints. Where is your outrage over HIM breaking HIS OWN stated policy of lobbyist reform within DAYS? I never saw it. Where is any complaint for anything Obama has done? That is my issue with you, not this particular bill itself. You are becoming that which you despise, or maybe you always were, but now it is noticeable since the shoe is on the other foot. Have fun.

BigHub
03-04-10, 01:22 PM
The way I look at it... If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act. Let them wire tap me... if they want to listen in to me talking dirty to my girl, let 'em. Or talk to my friends about going fishing, hunting, whatever...

I know you're listening Big Brother, and I could really give a two-shits.

I'm glad we have the Patriot Act.. Maybe now we can get rid of DOMESTIC terrorism (Aryan Brotherhood and other extremist groups).

FYI - the KKK, Aryan Brotherhood, Christian Identity Movement etc.. have killed more people in the U.S. than Bin Laden has ever DREAMED of. It's about time the Government became smart.

Blakeman
03-04-10, 01:25 PM
Who added the amendment? And who voted for it?


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR03961:

H.R.3961
Title: An Act to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until February 28, 2011.
Sponsor: Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] (introduced 10/29/2009) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.RES.903, H.RES.1109, H.R.1109, H.R.2920
Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-141 [GPO: Text, PDF]

Rep Dingell, John D. [MI-15] - Sponsor

Co Sponsors

Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1]
Rep Miller, George [CA-7]
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6]
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30]


1 . Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)[H.R.3961.IH][PDF]
2 . To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reform the Medicare SGR payment system for physicians and to reinstitute and update the Pay-As-You-Go requirement of budget neutrality... (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.R.3961.EH][PDF]
3 . To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reform the Medicare SGR payment system for physicians and to reinstitute and update the Pay-As-You-Go requirement of budget neutrality... (Received in Senate from House)[H.R.3961.RDS][PDF]
4 . To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reform the Medicare SGR payment system for physicians and to reinstitute and update the Pay-As-You-Go requirement of budget neutrality... (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[H.R.3961.PCS][PDF]
5 . Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3961) entitled `An Act to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reform the Medicare SGR payment system for... (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)[H.R.3961.EAS][PDF]
6 . To extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until February 28, 2011. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.3961.ENR][PDF]


That is what I found, it is a very obscure little add on to what is otherwise is just a bunch of pay as you go items for medicare.

hawgballs
03-04-10, 01:33 PM
It doesn't matter what the issue is. Where is your outrage over signing a bill within minutes of it passing without the time HE promised for the public to read it? i never saw your complaints. Where is your outrage over HIM breaking HIS OWN stated policy of lobbyist reform within DAYS? I never saw it. Where is any complaint for anything Obama has done? That is my issue with you, not this particular bill itself. You are becoming that which you despise, or maybe you always were, but now it is noticeable since the shoe is on the other foot. Have fun.
He went against some campaign promises, I didn't like it, but as I have said, those issues that you are stating have little significance to me. That is pish posh compared to endorsing offshoring jobs overseas, bankrupting our country, invading a sovereign country under false pretenses, enriching your VP's friends with billions in no bid contracts...... And once again, once Obama proceeds to this level of then you will see the same type of ire as your guy received from me. But alas, context.......

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 01:40 PM
The way I look at it... If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act. Let them wire tap me... if they want to listen in to me talking dirty to my girl, let 'em. Or talk to my friends about going fishing, hunting, whatever...


Wrong!

Highstakes72
03-04-10, 01:58 PM
To Rocks points let talk abou the Patriot Act. Are people really upset that the conversation that they have with another person across lines and equipment they DO NOT OWN might be heard by someone else? :D

You (p) do not own the telecommunications infrastructure. You agree to terms of use with every contract and I bet NOWHERE in said contracts/agreements are you guaranteed privacy, for one its technically impossible to issue that guarantee. So in essence some people are pissed because the omnidirectional cellular transmissions are being screened? Wake up, your holding a f%$king radio.


This is complete bullshit. Are you actually trying to justify the erosion of our civil liberties just b/c it's possible to do so? In other words, our government should be allowed to wire tap our phones w/o a warrant b/c it's technically possible?

So I should be able to hit you if you're within my punches range.




No, I am trying to state that if you broadcast anything it can be heard. Allow me to simplify it for you. You walk into a room and talk to someone else at a measurable distance...someone else standing in that room can hear what you said and possibly act upon it....after all YOU put it out there. You want your shit to be kept private then you have to perform your own due diligence. To me its pretty simple really, some people are wired for a pre-disposition regarding certain ways of thinking. I spend everyday preventing information from be seen, heard, or otherwise disclosed to those who should not have it. Some people get it, some dont. So those as there are those that do not get it...I will always have a job.

rock_lobster
03-04-10, 01:59 PM
We could always create a separate topic for a presidential death match...Obama vs. Bush. I think maybe less than half of the posts in here are about the patriot act. The rest are all about who was a better president than who.

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:02 PM
The way I look at it... If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act. Let them wire tap me... if they want to listen in to me talking dirty to my girl, let 'em. Or talk to my friends about going fishing, hunting, whatever...


Wrong!


Whatcha hiding then? ;)

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:05 PM
It's a fine line. I am not a fan of taking the civil liberties of American citizens, but if/when the next Tim McVeigh comes down the pipe people will scream why didn't we know about this and do something to prevent it. So how do you do both?

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:06 PM
Exactly..

Sometimes you have to take away freedom to gain freedom. Sounds weird, I know.

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 02:07 PM
The way I look at it... If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act. Let them wire tap me... if they want to listen in to me talking dirty to my girl, let 'em. Or talk to my friends about going fishing, hunting, whatever...


Wrong!


Whatcha hiding then? ;)


And that's exactly the logic that those who want to take away your liberties use. It's my business what I'm doing, not anyone else's. If I'm suspected of a crime, the onus is on the accuser to prove it. It's not on me. If the government wants to tap my phone, then they should have to go in front of a judge and provide reasonable cause for a search.

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:10 PM
Well, like Civil said.. Don't throw your arms up in the air and say "WTF!" to the government and blame them when another Timothy McVeigh comes along.

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:12 PM
I'm not a fan of taking liberties away as well.. but I understand the severity and seriousness of the risks if we don't.

I weigh the two, and I take my side.

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 02:12 PM
It's a fine line. I am not a fan of taking the civil liberties of American citizens, but if/when the next Tim McVeigh comes down the pipe people will scream why didn't we know about this and do something to prevent it. So how do you do both?


And there's the rub. With liberty comes risk, you can't have it both ways.

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 02:13 PM
Well, like Civil said.. Don't throw your arms up in the air and say "WTF!" to the government and blame them when another Timothy McVeigh comes along.


When did I blame the government for what he did?

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:15 PM
I'm not saying you did personally.. I'm talking about the public in general. They tend to always turn to the government and put the blame on them for when shit like that happens. It's natural behavior, point the finger to the higher ups. The people turn to the government as their "protector".

Social Security? Medicare?... any of those ring a bell?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:18 PM
It's a fine line. I am not a fan of taking the civil liberties of American citizens, but if/when the next Tim McVeigh comes down the pipe people will scream why didn't we know about this and do something to prevent it. So how do you do both?


And there's the rub. With liberty comes risk, you can't have it both ways.


Very true. Much like with our current election process it is usually the lesser of 2 evils, but both options are evil to some extent.

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:23 PM
Kinky for Pres.

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 02:24 PM
I'm not saying you did personally.. I'm talking about the public in general. They tend to always turn to the government and put the blame on them for when shit like that happens. It's natural behavior, point the finger to the higher ups. The people turn to the government as their "protector".

Social Security? Medicare?... any of those ring a bell?


If people want to blame the government, so what. That's not an excuse to take away people's liberties. In fact, that's a really stupid reason.

Silent_Crow
03-04-10, 02:26 PM
I believe THE TED made a post a long time ago about why he voted for obama, and I agreed with him. I voted for obama because the war issue and civil rights issues outweighed my disagreement with his fiscal policies. However I can't help but think there are many people like me and ted who are completely disappointed in obamas lack of action on both of these issues.

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:30 PM
So the government trying to keep it's people safe is not a good enough reason/excuse?

Whatever, to each his own.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:35 PM
So the government trying to keep it's people safe is not a good enough reason/excuse?

Whatever, to each his own.




But to what extent? What if I think someone might be up to something massive, but then find out they are cheating on their taxes. Does the government ignore that, or prosecute?

jmw_man
03-04-10, 02:38 PM
I'm not saying you did personally.. I'm talking about the public in general. They tend to always turn to the government and put the blame on them for when shit like that happens. It's natural behavior, point the finger to the higher ups. The people turn to the government as their "protector".

Social Security? Medicare?... any of those ring a bell?


If people want to blame the government, so what. That's not an excuse to take away people's liberties. In fact, that's a really stupid reason.


Wait Wait, What's the stupid reason for taking away people's liberties? the fact that people want to blame the government? That's not what he said at all....

Because I can't imagine why ANYone would think saving lives is a stupid reason to take away people's liberties.

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:42 PM
Exactly, it's about saving lives.

I have no idea where you got blaming the government as an excuse... hell, that doesn't even fucking make sense.. at all.

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:43 PM
So the government trying to keep it's people safe is not a good enough reason/excuse?

Whatever, to each his own.




But to what extent? What if I think someone might be up to something massive, but then find out they are cheating on their taxes. Does the government ignore that, or prosecute?


That's a whole different matter, and I have no idea. I'm not a law expert. If it was up to me, I'd prosecute... I hate cheaters.

They'd probably ignore the claim about him producing something massive (terrorist-wise)... but they will probably bust his ass for his tax evasions or whatever he did tax-wise. If it's against the law, it's against the law.

Or at least that's how I see it.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:43 PM
Exactly, it's about saving lives.

I have no idea where you got blaming the government as an excuse... hell, that doesn't even fucking make sense.. at all.




So do you support searching a person's vehicle/home/person without probable cause or a warrant?

Blakeman
03-04-10, 02:45 PM
The way I look at it... If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act. Let them wire tap me... if they want to listen in to me talking dirty to my girl, let 'em. Or talk to my friends about going fishing, hunting, whatever...

I know you're listening Big Brother, and I could really give a two-shits.



The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand

jmw_man
03-04-10, 02:54 PM
The way I look at it... If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act. Let them wire tap me... if they want to listen in to me talking dirty to my girl, let 'em. Or talk to my friends about going fishing, hunting, whatever...

I know you're listening Big Brother, and I could really give a two-shits.



The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. - Ayn Rand


true but the pool of criminals will always be full of those who have and are breaking the same laws that have been around forever.

jmw_man
03-04-10, 02:55 PM
Exactly, it's about saving lives.

I have no idea where you got blaming the government as an excuse... hell, that doesn't even fucking make sense.. at all.




So do you support searching a person's vehicle/home/person without probable cause or a warrant?


If they aren't eating up my time then I wouldn't care.

BigHub
03-04-10, 02:55 PM
Exactly, it's about saving lives.

I have no idea where you got blaming the government as an excuse... hell, that doesn't even fucking make sense.. at all.




So do you support searching a person's vehicle/home/person without probable cause or a warrant?


Of course not... That's not what the government is doing though. BTW, cops can search a person without probable cause or a warrant (via Terry v. Ohio).

The government isn't just going around busting down people's doors and searching cars. They are wire tapping and listening to convos on people who are SUSPECTED terrorists. They also have informants who provide information about these certain individuals. If you do not engage in activities that would consider you a terrorist, then you have nothing to worry about. It's that simple.

You guys are paranoid. :D

jmw_man
03-04-10, 02:57 PM
You guys are paranoid. :D


*grabs foil hat*

CivilWars
03-04-10, 02:58 PM
Not really. What if I, and a few of my friends, call in and tip people off you are a suspected terrorist? Oh well, guess it sucks for you. What happens when they then find out you aren't a terrorist, but you did have relations with a 17 year old without knowing how old she was?

Yes, just an example. I do not think/believe/know/suspect that hub, or anyone else, is a terrorist or had relations with a minor.

BigHub
03-04-10, 03:05 PM
Then I'd go to jail for breaking the law. Shit sucks, but hey.. don't break the law.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:06 PM
Then I'd go to jail for breaking the law. Shit sucks, but hey.. don't break the law.


So you support prosecution by any means necessary? No concerns for "legal" obtaining of evidence?

BigHub
03-04-10, 03:13 PM
Not really, I was just saying that to amuse you :-* .

I'm all for obtaining evidence legally. BUT... if you're suspected of being a terrorist - which takes quite a bit. You just can't call in and say, "Hey, I think my neighbor is a terrorist". They aren't just going to hop up and respond. They are going to investigate your claim and how you came to such an accusation.

They will probably do a background check on the individual and all sorts of shit before they go and start busting down doors. You guys are misguided.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:15 PM
Not really, I was just saying that to amuse you :-* .

I'm all for obtaining evidence legally. BUT... if you're suspected of being a terrorist - which takes quite a bit. You just can't call in and say, "Hey, I think my neighbor is a terrorist". They aren't just going to hop up and respond. They are going to investigate your claim and how you came to such an accusation.

They will probably do a background check on the individual and all sorts of shit before they go and start busting down doors. You guys are misguided.




Sure, I am sure my analogy is oversimplified. That being said I would be willing to bet a dollar that there are multiple innocent people on the wire tap list.

Blakeman
03-04-10, 03:16 PM
* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Yeah screw that one then..... :-\

BigHub
03-04-10, 03:17 PM
Not really, I was just saying that to amuse you :-* .

I'm all for obtaining evidence legally. BUT... if you're suspected of being a terrorist - which takes quite a bit. You just can't call in and say, "Hey, I think my neighbor is a terrorist". They aren't just going to hop up and respond. They are going to investigate your claim and how you came to such an accusation.

They will probably do a background check on the individual and all sorts of shit before they go and start busting down doors. You guys are misguided.




Sure, I am sure my analogy is oversimplified. That being said I would be willing to bet a dollar that there are multiple innocent people on the wire tap list.


Sure there are... but once the government investigates and finds out they are not a terrorist, then I'm pretty sure they will disregard them.

jmw_man
03-04-10, 03:18 PM
Then I'd go to jail for breaking the law. Shit sucks, but hey.. don't break the law.


So you support prosecution by any means necessary? No concerns for "legal" obtaining of evidence?


This is when the law pisses me off, when the guilty get off innocent. If I don't want to go to jail then I choose to not break the law. Why is that so hard for others? Who cares how the evidence was obtained, as long as it's legitimate and you aren't being framed for something then I'm fine with it.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:20 PM
Then I'd go to jail for breaking the law. Shit sucks, but hey.. don't break the law.


So you support prosecution by any means necessary? No concerns for "legal" obtaining of evidence?


This is when the law pisses me off, when the guilty get off innocent. If I don't want to go to jail then I choose to not break the law. Why is that so hard for others? Who cares how the evidence was obtained, as long as it's legitimate and you aren't being framed for something then I'm fine with it.


Ok, so do you speed, or have you ever run a stop sign or red light? Did you drink underage, or ever drink and drive? Did you turn yourself in, and pay your restitution? If not then I guess the laws only apply to others. Slippery slope.

Kraker Jak
03-04-10, 03:21 PM
To Rocks points let talk abou the Patriot Act. Are people really upset that the conversation that they have with another person across lines and equipment they DO NOT OWN might be heard by someone else? :D

You (p) do not own the telecommunications infrastructure. You agree to terms of use with every contract and I bet NOWHERE in said contracts/agreements are you guaranteed privacy, for one its technically impossible to issue that guarantee. So in essence some people are pissed because the omnidirectional cellular transmissions are being screened? Wake up, your holding a f%$king radio.


This is complete bullshit. Are you actually trying to justify the erosion of our civil liberties just b/c it's possible to do so? In other words, our government should be allowed to wire tap our phones w/o a warrant b/c it's technically possible?

So I should be able to hit you if you're within my punches range.





Sort of what hub said...You are not being wire tapped trigger. No one gives a fuck about you, the government isnt using this to listen in on random americans. they have a sophisticated intelligence agency that weeds out the bullshit. Now, if they find somone in america that is a terrorist, by all means, listen in on thier phone calls, do whatever they need to in order to protect us.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:22 PM
The country would be safer if all firearms were outlawed too. You voting for that one as well?

BigHub
03-04-10, 03:23 PM
Then I'd go to jail for breaking the law. Shit sucks, but hey.. don't break the law.


So you support prosecution by any means necessary? No concerns for "legal" obtaining of evidence?


This is when the law pisses me off, when the guilty get off innocent. If I don't want to go to jail then I choose to not break the law. Why is that so hard for others? Who cares how the evidence was obtained, as long as it's legitimate and you aren't being framed for something then I'm fine with it.


Ok, so do you speed, or have you ever run a stop sign or red light? Did you drink underage, or ever drink and drive? Did you turn yourself in, and pay your restitution? If not then I guess the laws only apply to others. Slippery slope.


There's a big difference in the severity of crimes being committed.

Would you equate running a stop sign to killing hundreds of people?

You do not go to jail for running a stop sign, or any other Class C Misdemeanors for that sake.

BigHub
03-04-10, 03:24 PM
The country would be safer if all firearms were outlawed too. You voting for that one as well?


Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

If somebody wants somebody dead, they are going to do it whether they have a gun or not. A gun is just a tool.

BigHub
03-04-10, 03:25 PM
It's been a fun discussion, I'm off to work ladies and gents.

jmw_man
03-04-10, 03:25 PM
Then I'd go to jail for breaking the law. Shit sucks, but hey.. don't break the law.


So you support prosecution by any means necessary? No concerns for "legal" obtaining of evidence?


This is when the law pisses me off, when the guilty get off innocent. If I don't want to go to jail then I choose to not break the law. Why is that so hard for others? Who cares how the evidence was obtained, as long as it's legitimate and you aren't being framed for something then I'm fine with it.


Ok, so do you speed, or have you ever run a stop sign or red light? Did you drink underage, or ever drink and drive? Did you turn yourself in, and pay your restitution? If not then I guess the laws only apply to others. Slippery slope.


You say slippery slope as if I already answered your questions, lol

so is this where we switch from the topic of how evidence is obtained to the topic of our morals and ethics?

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:27 PM
No, they are not equal, but to say I am pissed at people that don't obey they laws when you don't obey the laws yourself is hypocritical, no? So what laws is it ok to disregard, and which ones really apply? Will it work if I tell the cop, "come on dude, I am not a terrorist, so why are you jacking with me for speeding?" Hell no. Laws are laws, either you obey all, or you are breaking the law.

@Hub - Sure, but if there were no guns it would be a lot more difficult. Once again, oversimplified, but just goes to show that you are willing to encroach on the civil liberties you feel don't affect you, but stand proud to defend the ones that do. Not directly Hub, but the plural YOU. Everyone does it.

@Poop - No, just saying that today it is wire tapping, and tomorrow it is, "well, I thought he might be bad, so I pulled him over, and then..." We have laws for probable cause for a reason.

jmw_man
03-04-10, 03:28 PM
The country would be safer if all firearms were outlawed too. You voting for that one as well?


nm last post, guess we are switch gears to the topic of banning firearms.

It's never issue by issue, it's either R or D with you guys.... Fucking party system, I'm in favor with "some" things from all parties and that's the way it should be with everyone statistically speaking....

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:30 PM
LOL, way to take one sentence from a whole 13 page topic and make that what it is about. As if I am for a ban on guns, ha!

Blakeman
03-04-10, 03:32 PM
The country would be safer if all firearms were outlawed too. You voting for that one as well?


nm last post, guess we are switch gears to the topic of banning firearms.

It's never issue by issue, it's either R or D with you guys.... Fucking party system, I'm in favor with "some" things from all parties and that's the way it should be with everyone statistically speaking....


I am the same way, but I do feel the Patriot Act is bullshit and against the bill of rights. It is either all or nothing with me when it comes to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

jmw_man
03-04-10, 03:34 PM
@Poop - No, just saying that today it is wire tapping, and tomorrow it is, "well, I thought he might be bad, so I pulled him over, and then..." We have laws for probable cause for a reason.


And that won't change with the local government. Heck, that's exactly what they plan on doing in the federal government, wire-tapping people when they have probably cause, not random folks.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:35 PM
The country would be safer if all firearms were outlawed too. You voting for that one as well?


nm last post, guess we are switch gears to the topic of banning firearms.

It's never issue by issue, it's either R or D with you guys.... Fucking party system, I'm in favor with "some" things from all parties and that's the way it should be with everyone statistically speaking....


I am the same way, but I do feel the Patriot Act is bullshit and against the bill of rights. It is either all or nothing with me when it comes to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.


This. R and D are both equally the problem.

SlimStumpy
03-04-10, 03:36 PM
Err.... what does ownership of equipment have to do with it?

The closest analog the founders would have been familiar with were letters sealed in envelopes. Those routinely went through the hands of others, through infrastructure that was not owned by the sender or the addressee. Do you really believe that they thought the government should be able to open and inspect all mail at will?

Put another way, if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in any area susceptible of being searched surreptitiously, then constitutional rights protecting us against unreasonable search and seizure are moot - the only place we would be secure from same would be a place that could not be invaded. Thus there would be no need for constitutional protection at all, as the only places protected under such an interpretation would be places that could not be invaded anyway.

On the subject of "If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act" misses the point entirely. Rights are not there to protect wrongdoers from detection by the government - rights are there to protect non-wrongdoing citizens from abuses by government officials inclined to abuse their power.

If all agents of the government were perfect beings who would always act fairly and justly no matter what, there would be no need for any limitations on government power - because there would never be any abuse.

But the fact is that governments, no matter how well structured, are run by humans, and humans are at best imperfect and at times can be downright venal and evil - even those in power.

I mean think about it for a second. Under the same logic, why shouldn't we just abolish all written laws, the court system, and all restraints on the discretion of police officers? It would certainly give them a greater ability to catch bad guys and dispose of them efficiently if any cop could just decide on his own, with no oversight or review, who is a criminal and what punishment they deserve, right? I mean if you are not doing anything wrong why would you worry about it? Certainly there will never be a cop that will abuse his power right?

jmw_man
03-04-10, 03:36 PM
LOL, way to take one sentence from a whole 13 page topic and make that what it is about. As if I am for a ban on guns, ha!


I know you aren't, your sentence just sounded as if you assume since I don't mind the patriot act that I wouldn't mind a ban on guns either as if just because I agree on one thing in one party then I agree with that party as a whole which isn't the case.

CivilWars
03-04-10, 03:38 PM
@Poop - No, just saying that today it is wire tapping, and tomorrow it is, "well, I thought he might be bad, so I pulled him over, and then..." We have laws for probable cause for a reason.


And that won't change with the local government. Heck, that's exactly what they plan on doing in the federal government, wire-tapping people when they have probably cause, not random folks.




Sure, and SSI will still be there when I get old enough to retire. Maybe I am just a little less trusting of big brother. Call me a foil hat ham radio operator if you want, but would it really be the first time the government overstepped their "intentions"?

@Poop - No, my point is why protect the constitution when it comes to guns, but not to civil liberties? I am not saying or implying that just because you are ok with the Patriot Act that you are ok with anti-gun laws. My question is why pick and chooses the articles and amendments you want to support?

triggerhappy2005
03-04-10, 03:39 PM
Err.... what does ownership of equipment have to do with it?

The closest analog the founders would have been familiar with were letters sealed in envelopes. Those routinely went through the hands of others, through infrastructure that was not owned by the sender or the addressee. Do you really believe that they thought the government should be able to open and inspect all mail at will?

Put another way, if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in any area susceptible of being searched surreptitiously, then constitutional rights protecting us against unreasonable search and seizure are moot - the only place we would be secure from same would be a place that could not be invaded. Thus there would be no need for constitutional protection at all, as the only places protected under such an interpretation would be places that could not be invaded anyway.

On the subject of "If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act" misses the point entirely. Rights are not there to protect wrongdoers from detection by the government - rights are there to protect non-wrongdoing citizens from abuses by government officials inclined to abuse their power.

If all agents of the government were perfect beings who would always act fairly and justly no matter what, there would be no need for any limitations on government power - because there would never be any abuse.

But the fact is that governments, no matter how well structured, are run by humans, and humans are at best imperfect and at times can be downright venal and evil - even those in power.

I mean think about it for a second. Under the same logic, why shouldn't we just abolish all written laws, the court system, and all restraints on the discretion of police officers? It would certainly give them a greater ability to catch bad guys and dispose of them efficiently if any cop could just decide on his own, with no oversight or review, who is a criminal and what punishment they deserve, right? I mean if you are not doing anything wrong why would you worry about it? Certainly there will never be a cop that will abuse his power right?


Well said.

jmw_man
03-04-10, 04:00 PM
@Poop - No, just saying that today it is wire tapping, and tomorrow it is, "well, I thought he might be bad, so I pulled him over, and then..." We have laws for probable cause for a reason.


And that won't change with the local government. Heck, that's exactly what they plan on doing in the federal government, wire-tapping people when they have probably cause, not random folks.




Sure, and SSI will still be there when I get old enough to retire. Maybe I am just a little less trusting of big brother. Call me a foil hat ham radio operator if you want, but would it really be the first time the government overstepped their "intentions"?

@Poop - No, my point is why protect the constitution when it comes to guns, but not to civil liberties? I am not saying or implying that just because you are ok with the Patriot Act that you are ok with anti-gun laws. My question is why pick and chooses the articles and amendments you want to support?


Is the constitution the gospel? Was it written by god himself? Were the guys that wrote it able to see the future way back in the past? Did they "design" the constitution to fit the size of a government we have today.

Why do I pick and choose the articles and amendments I want to support? Because they aren't all perfect because they were NOT written by perfect people. I support the patriot act, why should we risk the lives of more Americans? What will it take to convince you? Would the destruction of an entire city the size of Houston be enough for you to change your minds, or would you still be against the patriot act after such a catastrophic event?

Rawr
03-04-10, 04:08 PM
As it's been posted before, if you aren't guilty of anything... why worry? It may be very big brotherish, but hell I'm not trying to do anything bad, so I have nothing to worry about. Besides, if something like 9/11 can be prevented by listening to some phone calls, so be it. After watching about 15 - 20 friends lose family members, I'd rather not see anything like that happen again.

SlimStumpy
03-04-10, 04:36 PM
I was two blocks away from the whitehouse on 9/11, and after the news of the first tower getting hit broke up our staff meeting, I went up on the roof to grab a smoke... and the pentagon was on fire.

Rumors of more planes, phone lines jammed everywhere... chaos getting out of town.

And the bottom line is this: the patriot act would not have changed the outcome on that day even a little.

Governments that have unlimited powers inevitably terrorize their citizens. That is why we should aspire to be a governemnt of laws, not men.

Put another way, who here isn't bothered by the idiots who during george jr's term screamed about how the executive branch needed virtually unlimited power to fight terrorism BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR!!!! - but now that bo is in the whouse, they bitch endlessly about how the executive is overreaching and seizing too much power.

Even if you believe the well meaning man of zeal will never abuse his power and so you are willing to vest absolute power in his office, and even if you are right about that, you don't know who his successor will be, do you? And if his successor IS inclined to abuse his power, how inclined do you think he will be to give it up?

Red_Lizard2
03-04-10, 05:15 PM
First off, you do know the Patriot act gave the president the right to detain anyone he wants? That means if Obama decides he is tired of Civil bashing him every single day (:P), he can have him detained.

2nd, by checking out/buying a book i'm doing nothing wrong, but that can put me on a watchlist. Return from fighting for "freedom?" Well we have it all right here with wiretapping and following what you do. I guess soldiers are doing something wrong then. 6yo brings a butter knife to school? That family is a bunch of terrorists!

3rd, We may not have been able to stop 9/11, but we sure of hell could of at least really mucked up their plans with ALL THE SHIT WE KNEW prior. Oh and that means before the Patriot Act. Oh i'm sorry, that has to be false because its impossible to defend America without teh Patriotz Act!!!

Oh sure they can use it for good right now, and call me a looney but i do draw a line at how much power the federal government should have. I could get into the White House and basically just start detaining anyone who doesn't like my polices, did they do anything wrong? Well i guess to some dissent would be a crime...

Bubbasam
03-04-10, 05:20 PM
Err.... what does ownership of equipment have to do with it?

The closest analog the founders would have been familiar with were letters sealed in envelopes. Those routinely went through the hands of others, through infrastructure that was not owned by the sender or the addressee. Do you really believe that they thought the government should be able to open and inspect all mail at will?

Put another way, if there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in any area susceptible of being searched surreptitiously, then constitutional rights protecting us against unreasonable search and seizure are moot - the only place we would be secure from same would be a place that could not be invaded. Thus there would be no need for constitutional protection at all, as the only places protected under such an interpretation would be places that could not be invaded anyway.

On the subject of "If you're not doing anything wrong, then who fucking cares about the Patriot Act" misses the point entirely. Rights are not there to protect wrongdoers from detection by the government - rights are there to protect non-wrongdoing citizens from abuses by government officials inclined to abuse their power.

If all agents of the government were perfect beings who would always act fairly and justly no matter what, there would be no need for any limitations on government power - because there would never be any abuse.

But the fact is that governments, no matter how well structured, are run by humans, and humans are at best imperfect and at times can be downright venal and evil - even those in power.

I mean think about it for a second. Under the same logic, why shouldn't we just abolish all written laws, the court system, and all restraints on the discretion of police officers? It would certainly give them a greater ability to catch bad guys and dispose of them efficiently if any cop could just decide on his own, with no oversight or review, who is a criminal and what punishment they deserve, right? I mean if you are not doing anything wrong why would you worry about it? Certainly there will never be a cop that will abuse his power right?


Well said.

+1
I for one believe that if the government has the opportunity to listen in on everyone's conversations at any time, they will do it. They may not act on anything that they hear at the time, but the info they gather would be used against us in the future if it would benefit them and their needs. You can call it paranoia or whatever you want, but that is what they would do and you all know it.

I'm sorry I forgot to respond to the topic at hand:
I didn't like the Patriot Act then, and I don't like it now.

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 09:20 PM
So then you admit the Patriot Act, enacted by Bush, is a good thing? If no then why is it being extended?


There's a third option. The Patriot Act was wrong and the extension of it, even by the person I voted for, is wrong.

See Civil, unlike you, I don't agree with everything the person I voted for does or did. It's called an imperfect world but it's still better than the alternative.


When did I ever say everything Bush did was right? I seem to recall agreeing with you on many items you disagreed with. However, I also recall you saying that Bush did nothing positive/good in his time in office, so that means if Obama decides to continue something Bush began he is double screwing up, one for not seeing the error, and two for continuing the error. Either that, or maybe Bush did do some things right?


Of course Bush did some things right, the Patriot Act not being one of them. The problem with Bush was that his screw-ups were really bad (Iraq, Katrina, tax cuts for the rich). In comparison, Clinton's biggest knock was he got a blowjob in the White House by someone other than his wife.

Big difference.


Purely your opinion of Bush seeing as J. Buchanan is still considered the worst one by historians. Didn't really care for Buch jr. but katrina wasn't his fault and iraq wasn't his fault. We should of finished the job the first time.

You really think Clintons biggest knock was a blow job? Really how soon we forget all the crap he did. How about NAFTA? How did that work out for us? Let see if you go by what is said to be the norm 8-10 years for effects to be felt by what a president has done where does that put us? How about thousands of jobs sent outside our borders. His bills could actually be the begining stage of what sent us into a recession in the first place.

How about the fact he compained on preserving americas military stregth then turned around and enacted a defense budget cut more than double of what was normal for the time. How about Bin laden was wanted internationally and was set at his door step before 9-11 every had a chance to happen and he refused to take him. Those are just a few for your great Clinton. Fuck Clinton he's a dumbass.

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 09:27 PM
To Rocks points let talk abou the Patriot Act. Are people really upset that the conversation that they have with another person across lines and equipment they DO NOT OWN might be heard by someone else? :D

You (p) do not own the telecommunications infrastructure. You agree to terms of use with every contract and I bet NOWHERE in said contracts/agreements are you guaranteed privacy, for one its technically impossible to issue that guarantee. So in essence some people are pissed because the omnidirectional cellular transmissions are being screened? Wake up, your holding a f%$king radio.


I know you didn't put that LOL. How about First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Until there is a clause in a contract for your phone service specifically stating your conversation may be monitored it is a direct violation of your freedom of speach regardless of who owns the lines.

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 09:35 PM
Blake, it isn't a loss of a days pay. It is loss of jobs. That ruins lives.

I understand, but that would be the Senates fault for the amendment, not his. His senate is made up of most of his party though, thus the pass.

The jobs were already put on hold before this one got put through because they had so much else going on if I read everything properly.
The pass, with veto proof majority on the bill. how would Obama's veto made any difference other than delaying the inevitable of the bill passing. Thus possibly costing people their livelihood?

So let me get this straight, if he vetoes the bill, all he is doing is displaying his displeasure and pointing blame at the Senate as well as costing people jobs(a basic display of politics). If he doesn't veto the bill, he is seen as being as complicit as Bush was in writing the Patriot Act, even though the extension was a amendment to a jobs bill?


Very simple. It would of shown that he did not approve of it but that is not what he choose to do.

Silent_Crow
03-04-10, 09:45 PM
do whatever they need to in order to protect us.

I just fundamentally disagree with that. I can understand why you believe that, but I dont.



Until there is a clause in a contract for your phone service specifically stating your conversation may be monitored it is a direct violation of your freedom of speach regardless of who owns the lines.

amen.



Even if you believe the well meaning man of zeal will never abuse his power and so you are willing to vest absolute power in his office, and even if you are right about that, you don't know who his successor will be, do you? And if his successor IS inclined to abuse his power, how inclined do you think he will be to give it up?

Exactly.

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 09:53 PM
Exactly, it's about saving lives.

I have no idea where you got blaming the government as an excuse... hell, that doesn't even fucking make sense.. at all.




So do you support searching a person's vehicle/home/person without probable cause or a warrant?


Of course not... That's not what the government is doing though. BTW, cops can search a person without probable cause or a warrant (via Terry v. Ohio).






Do you actualy know the case? or at least read it? If so then you must have missed this part.

He also knows such hunches do not provide the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop and investigate the driver for the suspected drug crime. He decides to follow the suspect closely and wait for the inevitable wait for him to violate one of the litany of traffic laws that govern the roads.

paraphrased

After not using a turn signal he pulls the car over and on the front seat is a baggy of white powdery substance.

Thats probably cause guy.

BigHub
03-04-10, 10:13 PM
Ha, you're talking to a CJ major. Ya.. I do know the case, and apparently you don't.

Terry v. Ohio deals with police officers searching individuals for their own safety pretty much. Here, read:



On October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner and acting in a way the officer thought suspicious. Detective McFadden observed the two proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. After one of these trips, they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly after a brief conversation. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up", detective McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.
The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something", whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt a pistol in his overcoat pocket. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed Terry's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under Terry's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Terry and Chilton were subsequently charged with carrying concealed weapons.
The defense of the charged individuals moved to suppress the use of the seized weapons as evidence on grounds that the search and subsequent seizure were a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The trial court made a distinction between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime.
Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the Ohio State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

You're thinking of Arizona v. Gant:



was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

Case Facts:

The case involved Rodney J. Gant, who was arrested by Tucson, Arizona police and charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license. Police arrested Gant in a friend's yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police patrol cars. The officers then searched Gant's vehicle. After finding a weapon and a bag of cocaine, they also charged him with possession of a narcotic for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Supreme Court Decision:

In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, "In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant

SlimStumpy
03-04-10, 10:19 PM
People who think the first gulf war didn't "finish the job" depress me.

Fovezer
03-04-10, 10:26 PM
Purely your opinion of Bush seeing as J. Buchanan is still considered the worst one by historians. Didn't really care for Buch jr. but katrina wasn't his fault and iraq wasn't his fault. We should of finished the job the first time.

Really, Iraq is not Bush's fault? He didn't send in far fewer troops than recommended because he thought we would be "greeted as liberators"? His administration did not lie about WMD's? What planet are you living on?


You really think Clintons biggest knock was a blow job? Really how soon we forget all the crap he did. How about NAFTA? How did that work out for us? Let see if you go by what is said to be the norm 8-10 years for effects to be felt by what a president has done where does that put us? How about thousands of jobs sent outside our borders. His bills could actually be the begining stage of what sent us into a recession in the first place.

How about the fact he compained on preserving americas military stregth then turned around and enacted a defense budget cut more than double of what was normal for the time. How about Bin laden was wanted internationally and was set at his door step before 9-11 every had a chance to happen and he refused to take him. Those are just a few for your great Clinton. Fuck Clinton he's a dumbass.

NAFTA was undoubtedly a mistake. It was initiated and negotiated by Bush Sr., not Clinton, although Clinton was the one to sign it into law. His other mistake was signing the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed the Glass-Steagal Act. Those mistakes, however, are not the reason we are here today. At the end of Clinton's term, the CBO projected surpluses of $2.6 trillion from 2000-2009. Bush came in, passed his disastrous tax cuts, oversaw more deregulation, and here we are today. Now, instead of being able to cut into surpluses to spend, we are incurring even more debt. Bush's fault, not Clinton's, so fuck Bush.


I know you didn't put that LOL. How about First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Until there is a clause in a contract for your phone service specifically stating your conversation may be monitored it is a direct violation of your freedom of speach regardless of who owns the lines.

Ridiculous. It in no way violates your freedom of speech. Monitoring your call does not infringe on your right to say what you want. Now, I am not in anyway defending this or the Patriot Act, I oppose both, but at least make sure your facts are right. The question is if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and if listening in on your conversation is an invasion of your privacy. I believe it is, and that is why I oppose it.

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 10:37 PM
Ha, you're talking to a CJ major. Ya.. I do know the case, and apparently you don't.

Terry v. Ohio deals with police officers searching individuals for their own safety pretty much. Here, read:



On October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner and acting in a way the officer thought suspicious. Detective McFadden observed the two proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. After one of these trips, they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly after a brief conversation. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up", detective McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.
The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something", whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt a pistol in his overcoat pocket. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed Terry's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under Terry's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Terry and Chilton were subsequently charged with carrying concealed weapons.
The defense of the charged individuals moved to suppress the use of the seized weapons as evidence on grounds that the search and subsequent seizure were a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The trial court made a distinction between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime.
Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the Ohio State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

You're thinking of Arizona v. Gant:



was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

Case Facts:

The case involved Rodney J. Gant, who was arrested by Tucson, Arizona police and charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license. Police arrested Gant in a friend's yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police patrol cars. The officers then searched Gant's vehicle. After finding a weapon and a bag of cocaine, they also charged him with possession of a narcotic for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Supreme Court Decision:

In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, "In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant


I dont care what you major in. You gave terry v ohio so thats what i looked up.

http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/luclj28&section=11

What the file you posted is missing is what did they mumble that made the officer pat him down? That on top of the fact they were casing the joint is probable cause that they may be about to commit a crime. Fine line with out a doubt but the argument is valid.

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 10:37 PM
People who think the first gulf war didn't "finish the job" depress me.




You must be depressed alot then.

goldkiros
03-04-10, 10:44 PM
When will they let the dam thing just die. ><

BigHub
03-04-10, 10:46 PM
Ha, you're talking to a CJ major. Ya.. I do know the case, and apparently you don't.

Terry v. Ohio deals with police officers searching individuals for their own safety pretty much. Here, read:



On October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner and acting in a way the officer thought suspicious. Detective McFadden observed the two proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. After one of these trips, they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly after a brief conversation. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up", detective McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.
The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something", whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt a pistol in his overcoat pocket. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed Terry's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under Terry's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Terry and Chilton were subsequently charged with carrying concealed weapons.
The defense of the charged individuals moved to suppress the use of the seized weapons as evidence on grounds that the search and subsequent seizure were a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The trial court made a distinction between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime.
Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the Ohio State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

You're thinking of Arizona v. Gant:



was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

Case Facts:

The case involved Rodney J. Gant, who was arrested by Tucson, Arizona police and charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license. Police arrested Gant in a friend's yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police patrol cars. The officers then searched Gant's vehicle. After finding a weapon and a bag of cocaine, they also charged him with possession of a narcotic for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Supreme Court Decision:

In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, "In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant


I dont care what you major in. You gave terry v ohio so thats what i looked up.

http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/luclj28&section=11

What the file you posted is missing is what did they mumble that made the officer pat him down? That on top of the fact they were casing the joint is probable cause that they may be about to commit a crime. Fine line with out a doubt but the argument is valid.


Huh? That's not Terry v. Ohio... That's Whren v. United States, plus the link you gave me is just some journal article about it, which also mentions Terry v. Ohio.

Also nobody knows what they "mumbled", not even the officer... which is why the officer said he heard them "mumble". It gave the officer enough reasonable suspicion though.

Mumble -

–verb (used without object)

1. to speak in a low indistinct manner, almost to an unintelligible extent; mutter.


In other words, he couldn't make it out... but it was enough to make him suspicious, then add on all the suspicious casing they were doing.

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 11:00 PM
Purely your opinion of Bush seeing as J. Buchanan is still considered the worst one by historians. Didn't really care for Buch jr. but katrina wasn't his fault and iraq wasn't his fault. We should of finished the job the first time.

Really, Iraq is not Bush's fault? He didn't send in far fewer troops than recommended because he thought we would be "greeted as liberators"? His administration did not lie about WMD's? What planet are you living on?


You really think Clintons biggest knock was a blow job? Really how soon we forget all the crap he did. How about NAFTA? How did that work out for us? Let see if you go by what is said to be the norm 8-10 years for effects to be felt by what a president has done where does that put us? How about thousands of jobs sent outside our borders. His bills could actually be the begining stage of what sent us into a recession in the first place.

How about the fact he compained on preserving americas military stregth then turned around and enacted a defense budget cut more than double of what was normal for the time. How about Bin laden was wanted internationally and was set at his door step before 9-11 every had a chance to happen and he refused to take him. Those are just a few for your great Clinton. Fuck Clinton he's a dumbass.

NAFTA was undoubtedly a mistake. It was initiated and negotiated by Bush Sr., not Clinton, although Clinton was the one to sign it into law. His other mistake was signing the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed the Glass-Steagal Act. Those mistakes, however, are not the reason we are here today. At the end of Clinton's term, the CBO projected surpluses of $2.6 trillion from 2000-2009. Bush came in, passed his disastrous tax cuts, oversaw more deregulation, and here we are today. Now, instead of being able to cut into surpluses to spend, we are incurring even more debt. Bush's fault, not Clinton's, so fuck Bush.


I know you didn't put that LOL. How about First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Until there is a clause in a contract for your phone service specifically stating your conversation may be monitored it is a direct violation of your freedom of speach regardless of who owns the lines.

Ridiculous. It in no way violates your freedom of speech. Monitoring your call does not infringe on your right to say what you want. Now, I am not in anyway defending this or the Patriot Act, I oppose both, but at least make sure your facts are right. The question is if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and if listening in on your conversation is an invasion of your privacy. I believe it is, and that is why I oppose it.


LOL one at a time. First what was sent in did the job just fine. Your thinking of the aftermath with alqaeta. Second we did find WMD's. Third same one as you i just pay better attention.

I agree fuck bush to but my point was don't try to give clinton a pass because he hide behind a blow job scandle the whole time.

As for the phone the arguement has been made on both sides of and freedom of speech has been used many times as an argument as well as a violation of privacy. The rest we agree on. My facts are straight as ussual.

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 11:05 PM
Ha, you're talking to a CJ major. Ya.. I do know the case, and apparently you don't.

Terry v. Ohio deals with police officers searching individuals for their own safety pretty much. Here, read:



On October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner and acting in a way the officer thought suspicious. Detective McFadden observed the two proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. After one of these trips, they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly after a brief conversation. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up", detective McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.
The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something", whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt a pistol in his overcoat pocket. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed Terry's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under Terry's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Terry and Chilton were subsequently charged with carrying concealed weapons.
The defense of the charged individuals moved to suppress the use of the seized weapons as evidence on grounds that the search and subsequent seizure were a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that Terry and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The trial court made a distinction between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime.
Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed the conviction, and the Ohio State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

You're thinking of Arizona v. Gant:



was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.

Case Facts:

The case involved Rodney J. Gant, who was arrested by Tucson, Arizona police and charged with driving on a suspended driver’s license. Police arrested Gant in a friend's yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police patrol cars. The officers then searched Gant's vehicle. After finding a weapon and a bag of cocaine, they also charged him with possession of a narcotic for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Supreme Court Decision:

In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.
Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, "In my view we should simply abandon the Belton-Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases. I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto “reasonable” only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._Gant


I dont care what you major in. You gave terry v ohio so thats what i looked up.

http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/luclj28&section=11

What the file you posted is missing is what did they mumble that made the officer pat him down? That on top of the fact they were casing the joint is probable cause that they may be about to commit a crime. Fine line with out a doubt but the argument is valid.


Huh? That's not Terry v. Ohio... That's Whren v. United States, plus the link you gave me is just some journal article about it, which also mentions Terry v. Ohio.

Also nobody knows what they "mumbled", not even the officer... which is why the officer said he heard them "mumble". It gave the officer enough reasonable suspicion though.

Mumble -

–verb (used without object)

1. to speak in a low indistinct manner, almost to an unintelligible extent; mutter.


In other words, he couldn't make it out... but it was enough to make him suspicious, then add on all the suspicious casing they were doing.




LMAO who would of thought your case name would pull up a case with the same name of an actual person. I didn't even notice that. As for the mumble well we both know many times you can actually hear what was said and chose to omit it. I'm guessing we can agree on reasonable suspicion being equal to probable cause? I dont need the definition. I'm well aware of what it means.

ninja|oaklandr
03-04-10, 11:19 PM
So who is right? You or Bush? Even he says as do many that we didn't find WMD. Did you have more intel than him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 11:27 PM
So who is right? You or Bush? Even he says as do many that we didn't find WMD. Did you have more intel than him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE


First you would need a date for the video for that press release verses when they found the chemical weapons.

Fovezer
03-04-10, 11:28 PM
LOL one at a time. First what was sent in did the job just fine. Your thinking of the aftermath with alqaeta. Second we did find WMD's. Third same one as you i just pay better attention.

No, I'm not thinking about the "aftermath." We knew beforehand was that we were going to be there for awhile. We weren't just going in, overthrowing Saddam, and leaving. Nutjobs in the administration may have thought it would only be 6 months, but they still knew we would be there after we defeated Iraqi military. The WMD's we found were degraded chemical munitions from the Iran-Iraq war, nothing from recent times, though, and hardly the mobile weapon labs that the administration invented to gain support for the war. No modern chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons where found nor any methods of producing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Iraq_Survey_G roup It's quite clear you pay as much attention as an ostrich with its head in the sand, though.


I agree fuck bush to but my point was don't try to give clinton a pass because he hide behind a blow job scandle the whole time.

I don't think anyone was saying Clinton was perfect. What was being said was that in comparison to the colossal fuck-ups by Bush, Clinton's mistakes are hardly remembered.


As for the phone the arguement has been made on both sides of and freedom of speech has been used many times as an argument as well as a violation of privacy. The rest we agree on. My facts are straight as ussual.

No, your "facts" are wrong because they make no sense. How can it be an infringement on free speech if it does nothing to infringe on your right to say what you want? I know we are on the same side on this particular issue, but I think the way you are approaching it is wrong. It is not a violation of free speech, it is a violation of your privacy, which you have a reasonable expectation of when talking on the phone as long as you are not in public.

BigHub
03-04-10, 11:31 PM
Ok... no more quoting, It's becoming a wall-o-text.

Well, they do not equate each other. I, personally, sometimes have trouble and interchange the two. Trust me, it's easy to mix them up. I know you don't want me to define it, but hey.. everyone needs to know this.

Probable Cause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause


In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed.

Reasonable Suspicion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion


that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also sometimes called "arguable suspicion".

deathgodusmc
03-04-10, 11:53 PM
LOL one at a time. First what was sent in did the job just fine. Your thinking of the aftermath with alqaeta. Second we did find WMD's. Third same one as you i just pay better attention.

No, I'm not thinking about the "aftermath." We knew beforehand was that we were going to be there for awhile. We weren't just going in, overthrowing Saddam, and leaving. Nutjobs in the administration may have thought it would only be 6 months, but they still knew we would be there after we defeated Iraqi military. The WMD's we found were degraded chemical munitions from the Iran-Iraq war, nothing from recent times, though, and hardly the mobile weapon labs that the administration invented to gain support for the war. No modern chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons where found nor any methods of producing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Iraq_Survey_G roup It's quite clear you pay as much attention as an ostrich with its head in the sand, though.


I agree fuck bush to but my point was don't try to give clinton a pass because he hide behind a blow job scandle the whole time.

I don't think anyone was saying Clinton was perfect. What was being said was that in comparison to the colossal fuck-ups by Bush, Clinton's mistakes are hardly remembered.


As for the phone the arguement has been made on both sides of and freedom of speech has been used many times as an argument as well as a violation of privacy. The rest we agree on. My facts are straight as ussual.

No, your "facts" are wrong because they make no sense. How can it be an infringement on free speech if it does nothing to infringe on your right to say what you want? I know we are on the same side on this particular issue, but I think the way you are approaching it is wrong. It is not a violation of free speech, it is a violation of your privacy, which you have a reasonable expectation of when talking on the phone as long as you are not in public.


Really your not thinking of alqaeta? If the Iraq army has been defeated and we aren't fighting them anymore then who are we fighting there?

You said no wmd's now you say no modern wmd's. There are not suppost to be any in the country period. Just having the cash was a violation of the treaty and grounds to reenter Iraq. You can go round and round but it is very clear they are to have none and they did. I'm not trying to justify what happened just saying you were incorrect saying that there were none.

As for his mistakes they will be forgotten as well. Thats just how people are. Something more interesting will come up.

My facts are wrong because you say so is that what your trying to get at? I agree with you but the arguement has been made for freedom of speech as well.

deathgodusmc
03-05-10, 12:02 AM
Ok... no more quoting, It's becoming a wall-o-text.

Well, they do not equate each other. I, personally, sometimes have trouble and interchange the two. Trust me, it's easy to mix them up. I know you don't want me to define it, but hey.. everyone needs to know this.

Probable Cause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause


In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed.

Reasonable Suspicion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion


that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is also sometimes called "arguable suspicion".


The legal definitions are better but we both know you wont get your point acrossed with those in here. I'm not against defintions sometimes they are neccassary to get your point acrossed. I just meant i didnt need one on the word mumble. I agree they aren't the same but it is only a small difference between the two. In this case it could have been just noticing a small bulge in the guys coat before he decided to frisk him.

Fovezer
03-05-10, 12:14 AM
Really your not thinking of alqaeta? If the Iraq army has been defeated and we aren't fighting them anymore then who are we fighting there?

Al-Qaeda in Iraq was not the big problem. It was the insurgency of people like Ba'athists, al-Sadr's people, Sunni groups, Shi'a groups, Resistance groups, etc. AQI peaked around 2007 and were pretty much completely marginalized by 2008. They were hardly the people we have been fighting all along.


You said no wmd's now you say no modern wmd's. There are not suppost to be any in the country period. Just having the cash was a violation of the treaty and grounds to reenter Iraq. You can go round and round but it is very clear they are to have none and they did. I'm not trying to justify what happened just saying you were incorrect saying that there were none.

They had some leftover relics from before they agreed to destroy them all and dating back to the Iran-Iraq war. The whole case made by the Bush administration was that they were currently making WMD's and stockpiling them, possibly selling them to terrorists. Those were all lies, plain and simple, and no amount of revisionist history from you is going to change that. We found NO modern WMD's, no caches, nothing but a handful of old, useless, leftover shells that contained some degraded chemicals. Again, you can argue semantics all you want, but you damn well know the reason we invaded wasn't because of a couple of useless relics and to say otherwise is revisionism.


As for his mistakes they will be forgotten as well. Thats just how people are. Something more interesting will come up.

And his mistakes haven't been nearly as costly.


My facts are wrong because you say so is that what your trying to get at? I agree with you but the arguement has been made for freedom of speech as well.

Well, then make it. You have not made the case for it yet.

Rooster050
03-05-10, 12:27 AM
I'm not surprised


http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/images/articles/2008_05/981/u1_Patriot-Act.gif&usg=AFQjCNG-SQYeMIdlO3cgHNTNlMxQOqn-lg

jmw_man
03-05-10, 08:57 AM
I would like to hear of the scenario that most people are afraid of when it comes to the patriot act. I keep hearing, "I don't want my liberties taken away" and whatnot but what is it specifically they think will happen to them that's so bad?

triggerhappy2005
03-05-10, 11:31 AM
LOL one at a time. First what was sent in did the job just fine. Your thinking of the aftermath with alqaeta. Second we did find WMD's. Third same one as you i just pay better attention.

No, I'm not thinking about the "aftermath." We knew beforehand was that we were going to be there for awhile. We weren't just going in, overthrowing Saddam, and leaving. Nutjobs in the administration may have thought it would only be 6 months, but they still knew we would be there after we defeated Iraqi military. The WMD's we found were degraded chemical munitions from the Iran-Iraq war, nothing from recent times, though, and hardly the mobile weapon labs that the administration invented to gain support for the war. No modern chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons where found nor any methods of producing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Iraq_Survey_G roup It's quite clear you pay as much attention as an ostrich with its head in the sand, though.


I agree fuck bush to but my point was don't try to give clinton a pass because he hide behind a blow job scandle the whole time.

I don't think anyone was saying Clinton was perfect. What was being said was that in comparison to the colossal fuck-ups by Bush, Clinton's mistakes are hardly remembered.


As for the phone the arguement has been made on both sides of and freedom of speech has been used many times as an argument as well as a violation of privacy. The rest we agree on. My facts are straight as ussual.

No, your "facts" are wrong because they make no sense. How can it be an infringement on free speech if it does nothing to infringe on your right to say what you want? I know we are on the same side on this particular issue, but I think the way you are approaching it is wrong. It is not a violation of free speech, it is a violation of your privacy, which you have a reasonable expectation of when talking on the phone as long as you are not in public.


Really your not thinking of alqaeta? If the Iraq army has been defeated and we aren't fighting them anymore then who are we fighting there?

Civilian militias. They formed after the botched occupation and de-bathification of the government and Iraqi military.

You said no wmd's now you say no modern wmd's. There are not suppost to be any in the country period. Just having the cash was a violation of the treaty and grounds to reenter Iraq. You can go round and round but it is very clear they are to have none and they did. I'm not trying to justify what happened just saying you were incorrect saying that there were none.

It's the equivalent of finding a joint vs. 10 kilos of Mary. We found a joint but were promised we'd find the opposite thus negating the whole reason we went there to begin with. Our allies and us were in imminent danger, remember? ::)

As for his mistakes they will be forgotten as well. Thats just how people are. Something more interesting will come up.

I think Billy boy's blowjob will fade faster than the memory of 4000+ service men and womem who died needlessly.

My facts are wrong because you say so is that what your trying to get at? I agree with you but the arguement has been made for freedom of speech as well.

You argue semantics in a black and white setting. WMD's being proof of that. You're wrong in real world context.

Blakeman
03-05-10, 11:40 AM
I would like to hear of the scenario that most people are afraid of when it comes to the patriot act. I keep hearing, "I don't want my liberties taken away" and whatnot but what is it specifically they think will happen to them that's so bad?


It is not a specific jmw, I think that is what a lot of folks don't get. One iota of the bill of rights not being upheld means that the government might as well not listen to any of them, same with the constitution. It is either all or nothing, not 'well its ok this time since it will do X', that is a bunch of bullshit since what keeps them from doing more?

I could rattle off some scenario, but I don't want them to happen, that is why I don't want the patriot act. I do not feel it keeps us any safer and was a reaction to a situation, not a logical act within the governments rights to do.

I could 'what if' all day long, but the bill of rights is a solid piece of contract between the people, the states and the federal government.

jmw_man
03-05-10, 11:52 AM
So what was their reasoning for extending it for another year? There has to be a reason, it's not like people make decisions for just no reason at all. I mean, it didn't even barely pass, the numbers were strong. Is it possible it was effective and we as citizens don't know it?

jmw_man
03-05-10, 11:57 AM
I would like to hear of the scenario that most people are afraid of when it comes to the patriot act. I keep hearing, "I don't want my liberties taken away" and whatnot but what is it specifically they think will happen to them that's so bad?


It is not a specific jmw, I think that is what a lot of folks don't get. One iota of the bill of rights not being upheld means that the government might as well not listen to any of them, same with the constitution. It is either all or nothing, not 'well its ok this time since it will do X', that is a bunch of bullshit since what keeps them from doing more?

I could rattle off some scenario, but I don't want them to happen, that is why I don't want the patriot act. I do not feel it keeps us any safer and was a reaction to a situation, not a logical act within the governments rights to do.

I could 'what if' all day long, but the bill of rights is a solid piece of contract between the people, the states and the federal government.


This may be a bad analogy but; it's against the law to commit murder and it is against the law to speed on the roads, I don't break the first law because of the repercussions in doing so and it is just plain wrong. People fear that if we lose one right, then we will lose all of them, but the government would never go so far as to try to take them all because the people wouldn't stand for it, the repercussions would be huge. The government would be no more.

As I said before, the constitution and bill of rights were written a long time ago, in a different world than we know of today, it isn't the bible.

hawgballs
03-05-10, 12:25 PM
I would like to hear of the scenario that most people are afraid of when it comes to the patriot act. I keep hearing, "I don't want my liberties taken away" and whatnot but what is it specifically they think will happen to them that's so bad?


It is not a specific jmw, I think that is what a lot of folks don't get. One iota of the bill of rights not being upheld means that the government might as well not listen to any of them, same with the constitution. It is either all or nothing, not 'well its ok this time since it will do X', that is a bunch of bullshit since what keeps them from doing more?

I could rattle off some scenario, but I don't want them to happen, that is why I don't want the patriot act. I do not feel it keeps us any safer and was a reaction to a situation, not a logical act within the governments rights to do.

I could 'what if' all day long, but the bill of rights is a solid piece of contract between the people, the states and the federal government.


This may be a bad analogy but; it's against the law to commit murder and it is against the law to speed on the roads, I don't break the first law because of the repercussions in doing so and it is just plain wrong. People fear that if we lose one right, then we will lose all of them, but the government would never go so far as to try to take them all because the people wouldn't stand for it, the repercussions would be huge. The government would be no more.

As I said before, the constitution and bill of rights were written a long time ago, in a different world than we know of today, it isn't the bible.
You are right, they aren't the bible. The bible is a collection of stories miracles and magic. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are solid, hold in your hand contracts, regardless of when they were written, they are still valid. Didn't you swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" (http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm)? I wonder why they(the military) want to defend such a useless relic? Do they not realize that it was written such a long time ago? I mean, they act as if the Constitution is the cornerstone to our being a country and that the Bill of Rights actually has anything to do with affording the US citizens it's rights, inalienable........

Blakeman
03-05-10, 12:46 PM
I would like to hear of the scenario that most people are afraid of when it comes to the patriot act. I keep hearing, "I don't want my liberties taken away" and whatnot but what is it specifically they think will happen to them that's so bad?


It is not a specific jmw, I think that is what a lot of folks don't get. One iota of the bill of rights not being upheld means that the government might as well not listen to any of them, same with the constitution. It is either all or nothing, not 'well its ok this time since it will do X', that is a bunch of bullshit since what keeps them from doing more?

I could rattle off some scenario, but I don't want them to happen, that is why I don't want the patriot act. I do not feel it keeps us any safer and was a reaction to a situation, not a logical act within the governments rights to do.

I could 'what if' all day long, but the bill of rights is a solid piece of contract between the people, the states and the federal government.


This may be a bad analogy but; it's against the law to commit murder and it is against the law to speed on the roads, I don't break the first law because of the repercussions in doing so and it is just plain wrong. People fear that if we lose one right, then we will lose all of them, but the government would never go so far as to try to take them all because the people wouldn't stand for it, the repercussions would be huge. The government would be no more.

As I said before, the constitution and bill of rights were written a long time ago, in a different world than we know of today, it isn't the bible.


Bolded the one bit I thought was important. When do we 'take a stand'? When our rights are gone? Too late. When we have no control? Too late. When we see them happening? Patriot Act.

jmw it isn't the bible, but as hawg said it is a contract between you and the government. As you put 'the people wouldn't stand for it' is happening now, with the patriot act.

You might not see it in your daily lives, but what if you were renting a home and after the contract was signed and you were living there, the rental company told you they were going to add $5.00 a month for parking. You might not think it is such a big deal and agree to their terms, even though they were not in the original contract. Then the rental company figures it had better charge for garbage, even though you had a contract with them saying that was covered. Then the apartment company says to keep your dog you have to pay an extra $100 bucks a year, even though you already paid your deposit.

You would probably either leave or take them to court over breech of contract in the end. The patriot act is a breach of contract (i.e. search and seizure without warrant) and as such should not be tolerated by the people.

I don't want the government to be no more, sure I want some changes but the chaos of an unlawful and ungoverned country would send us into worse than third world situations. I do believe that the constitution and bill of rights are what this country is, without it or ignoring it we are no longer The United States of America.

jmw_man
03-05-10, 01:00 PM
I would like to hear of the scenario that most people are afraid of when it comes to the patriot act. I keep hearing, "I don't want my liberties taken away" and whatnot but what is it specifically they think will happen to them that's so bad?


It is not a specific jmw, I think that is what a lot of folks don't get. One iota of the bill of rights not being upheld means that the government might as well not listen to any of them, same with the constitution. It is either all or nothing, not 'well its ok this time since it will do X', that is a bunch of bullshit since what keeps them from doing more?

I could rattle off some scenario, but I don't want them to happen, that is why I don't want the patriot act. I do not feel it keeps us any safer and was a reaction to a situation, not a logical act within the governments rights to do.

I could 'what if' all day long, but the bill of rights is a solid piece of contract between the people, the states and the federal government.


This may be a bad analogy but; it's against the law to commit murder and it is against the law to speed on the roads, I don't break the first law because of the repercussions in doing so and it is just plain wrong. People fear that if we lose one right, then we will lose all of them, but the government would never go so far as to try to take them all because the people wouldn't stand for it, the repercussions would be huge. The government would be no more.

As I said before, the constitution and bill of rights were written a long time ago, in a different world than we know of today, it isn't the bible.
You are right, they aren't the bible. The bible is a collection of stories miracles and magic. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are solid, hold in your hand contracts, regardless of when they were written, they are still valid. Didn't you swear an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same" (http://www.history.army.mil/faq/oaths.htm)? I wonder why they(the military) want to defend such a useless relic? Do they not realize that it was written such a long time ago? I mean, they act as if the Constitution is the cornerstone to our being a country and that the Bill of Rights actually has anything to do with affording the US citizens it's rights, inalienable........


An oath that ends with "So help me God" ? Unfortunately I did swear such an oath that doesn't coincide with my religious beliefs.

jmw_man
03-05-10, 01:05 PM
An item that exists in the constitution is an item that can be repealed. Will you be fine with the patriot act when the one amendment the patriot act breaks is repealed. Seeing as you two swore the same oath, Marines.

jmw_man
03-05-10, 01:08 PM
Actually, what amendment is being broken by the patriot act? I believe I am defending the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.

triggerhappy2005
03-05-10, 01:25 PM
An item that exists in the constitution is an item that can be repealed. Will you be fine with the patriot act when the one amendment the patriot act breaks is repealed. Seeing as you two swore the same oath, Marines.


It can only be repealed by creating a new amendment, which is a nearly impossible feat considering the partisan politics going on now, not to mention the uproar it would cause.. The thought of congress creating a new amendment that would circumvent any of the bill of rights is ludicrous. In fact, to even bring that into an argument smacks of desperation.

Blakeman
03-05-10, 02:08 PM
Actually, what amendment is being broken by the patriot act? I believe I am defending the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.


Guess you didn't see it when I posted it earlier.


* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No warrant, no search or seizure. The patriot act defies the warrant part.

jmw_man
03-05-10, 03:00 PM
I thought the patriot act was about wire tapping phones.

Blakeman
03-05-10, 03:06 PM
I thought the patriot act was about wire tapping phones.


Not just phones, lots of other items are included. Detaining folks without a definite arrest being one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

jmw_man
03-05-10, 03:25 PM
Actually, what amendment is being broken by the patriot act? I believe I am defending the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.


Guess you didn't see it when I posted it earlier.


* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No warrant, no search or seizure. The patriot act defies the warrant part.




but the amendment states "protection from unreasonable search and seizure," how would you define the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable search and seizure? Can't you say that a search and seizure of a suspected terrorist would be reasonable?

Blakeman
03-05-10, 03:44 PM
Actually, what amendment is being broken by the patriot act? I believe I am defending the constitution against enemies, foreign and domestic.


Guess you didn't see it when I posted it earlier.


* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No warrant, no search or seizure. The patriot act defies the warrant part.




but the amendment states "protection from unreasonable search and seizure," how would you define the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable search and seizure? Can't you say that a search and seizure of a suspected terrorist would be reasonable?


It is the warrant part jmw, not the fact that searches have to take place. Not all wiretapping and not all searches under the patriot act's 'umbrella' have a judge authorized warrant, which is what the amendment calls for.

jmw_man
03-05-10, 04:12 PM
* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I've read these lines over and over and over again and man they are hard to understand, has the english language really changed that much?

It almost reads, (no warrant shall issue these rights be violated), anyways, can you translate for me word for word?

SlimStumpy
03-05-10, 04:26 PM
With respect to:

"but the amendment states "protection from unreasonable search and seizure," how would you define the difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable search and seizure? Can't you say that a search and seizure of a suspected terrorist would be reasonable?"

A search and seizure of a suspected terrorist is by definition reasonable (leaving aside for the moment that "terrorist" is a colloquial term - it has no real legal meaning. We'll just assume for the moment its shorthand for someone who either has or is planning on committing one of several illegal acts - mass murder for example - that fit our colloquial definition of terrorism).

The question is, who gets to decide if it is an actual suspected terrorist.

Some people these days in this country all Muslims are terrorists. Some people think its all people in turbans - even sihks. Some people think its all black people. There are people in this country (mostly they hang out on free republic and various ron paul or birther sites) who believe it is the current president is a foreign born Muslim terrorist and if the decision were up to them would not only order him seized and searched but also beaten and deported at the very least. If I'm a freeper cop, can I decide everyone who wears an uncut beard and a turban is a suspected terrorist? what if I am some goddam hippie law enforcement officer from Berkley or something? Can I decide that everyone who looks like Tim McViegh is a suspected terrorist and start seizing and searching every gulf war I vet I see?

What if the cop just hates your guts and wants to fuck you over? What if he's wrong and it wasn't you and your sardonic new yorker friend who killed the cerk and roared off in your skylark but rather it was two completely different guys, in a similarly colored Tempest with limited-slip differential posi-traction and an independent rear suspension that killed the clerk? do you just have to go get executed in backwoods Georgia or alabama or whatever? Or can your neophyte but streetwise newly minted lawyer cousin with an improbably smoking hot girlfriend come down and save your ass in a court of law?

As you can see, the question becomes how do we decide when its OK for government (which can only act through its officials) to go ahead and search and seize that suspected terrorist?

That is why (among other things) the 4th amendment is there. It is to insure government officials who might be inclined to abuse their power, or who might be just plain batshit crazy, or whatever, have to be "reasonable" about it. the term "reasonable" has a long history in common law, going back to the ancient roots of our common law. It means, generally, what the sort of average person in society in that place and time would consider reasonable. Its a fuzzy standard.

So how do you apply it?

That's where you start getting into Terry stops and warrants and qualified immunity and judicial review and all this other crap. It's about two semesters of law school and about three or four years of crim law practice and/or section 1983 practice before you really start getting the hang of it.

There is a bit over 200 years of legal precedent dealing with what is reasonable in terms of search and seizure, and it does change over time. For example, the founders would not have found it reasonable at all to search someone going on to an airplane. Their response to the question would have been "what the fuck's an airplane?" In their day, there was little danger that someone going on a ship, or a horse, or in a covered wagon or whatever would try to seize that ship or horse or coverd wagon and crash it into a skyscraper. Partly because doing that would not affect a skyscraper. But also because they didn't have skyscrapers either. So courts through time have looked at where society is and what it has and tried to gauge what is reasonable and when and provided guidance to law enforcement on a case by case basis....

In the case of seizing and searching a suspected terrorist, under traditional law if there is what a reasonable person in the area would consider reasonable grounds for suspicion, such a person could be stopped on the street and frisked. warrants could be obtained from a magistrate. The person could have their day in court to explain they are really the karate kid, and not some murdering bastard with a magnum in a lime green Tempest with limited-slip differential posi-traction and an independent rear suspension.

Under the patriot act, whoever happens to be on duty that day in the whitehouse can say "yup. think your a terrorist" to themselves and then they can tap your phone forever and grab you and hide you away and they don't ever have to explain themselves to anyone for any reason. Even when it becomes clear that really all they wanted was to fuck your girlfriend when she showed up looking for you, because then they would have the perfect opportunity to explain how they had no idea where you might be and you must be a real bastard to just abandon such a fine lady and not call for weeks, and show her that they would NEVER do that.

Blakeman
03-05-10, 04:26 PM
* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I've read these lines over and over and over again and man they are hard to understand, has the english language really changed that much?

It almost reads, (no warrant shall issue these rights be violated), anyways, can you translate for me word for word?



The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

We have the right to be secure - we have our privacy

persons - what is on us
houses - our home or domicile
papers - documents, files, even text messages
effects - basically anything we own not covered in the above

against unreasonable searches and seizures - the government can't search us at whim
shall not be violated - a promise to us that it will not happen


and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause - warrants being the document allowing them to search, again only with probable cause
supported by oath or affirmation - judge signed or the appropriate authority delegated by the state
particularly describing - they have to be specific on what the warrant covers, i.e. your house, or your car, or you, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

deathgodusmc
03-05-10, 05:28 PM
Really your not thinking of alqaeta? If the Iraq army has been defeated and we aren't fighting them anymore then who are we fighting there?

Al-Qaeda in Iraq was not the big problem. It was the insurgency of people like Ba'athists, al-Sadr's people, Sunni groups, Shi'a groups, Resistance groups, etc. AQI peaked around 2007 and were pretty much completely marginalized by 2008. They were hardly the people we have been fighting all along.


You said no wmd's now you say no modern wmd's. There are not suppost to be any in the country period. Just having the cash was a violation of the treaty and grounds to reenter Iraq. You can go round and round but it is very clear they are to have none and they did. I'm not trying to justify what happened just saying you were incorrect saying that there were none.

They had some leftover relics from before they agreed to destroy them all and dating back to the Iran-Iraq war. The whole case made by the Bush administration was that they were currently making WMD's and stockpiling them, possibly selling them to terrorists. Those were all lies, plain and simple, and no amount of revisionist history from you is going to change that. We found NO modern WMD's, no caches, nothing but a handful of old, useless, leftover shells that contained some degraded chemicals. Again, you can argue semantics all you want, but you damn well know the reason we invaded wasn't because of a couple of useless relics and to say otherwise is revisionism.


As for his mistakes they will be forgotten as well. Thats just how people are. Something more interesting will come up.

And his mistakes haven't been nearly as costly.


My facts are wrong because you say so is that what your trying to get at? I agree with you but the arguement has been made for freedom of speech as well.

Well, then make it. You have not made the case for it yet.


So you knew what i was refering to but continued to make denials and make it appear as if we were fighting the iraq military still. Pretty weak man.

I agree it wasn't the reason we entered Iraq. I was simply stating that people tend to glance over the fact that Iraq did have wmd's because it does not suite their arguement. Altho if i remember correctly they did find some parts and manuals buried by a house or something that were to nuclear weapons. Either way i made my point.

I don't know if i agree with you or not on bush verses clinton. On one hand bush made some bad decisions and spent alot of money on the wars we were and are engaged in. On the other I have to look at the policies Clinton passed and what may have been the out come of those policies.

Would we have ever had to have a war on terror if Clinton took Osama when he was offered? Would our economy have crashed nearly as hard if at all if companies didn't get paid to send jobs out of our country?

If i had to pick I would say the job deal has costs this country more than the war did. At least when we spend money on wars most of that money is from this country and put into companies in this country. Where sending jobs outside the country is money never returned.

I also have to look at the fact that our military says they need people and more funding to continue the fight and Clinton put them in a big bind when he took office. So my vote has to be on Clinton at this point in time being the bigger fuck up. Not that Bush is free and clear what so ever.

I'm going to leave the freedom of speech alone because you seem to think that i am the one that made the arguement when the patriot act was signed. Which i am not all i said was it was argued on both topics of freedom of speech and privacy.

deathgodusmc
03-05-10, 05:30 PM
I would like to hear of the scenario that most people are afraid of when it comes to the patriot act. I keep hearing, "I don't want my liberties taken away" and whatnot but what is it specifically they think will happen to them that's so bad?


The point is it sets a presidence for future laws to take more freedoms away.

deathgodusmc
03-05-10, 05:37 PM
LOL one at a time. First what was sent in did the job just fine. Your thinking of the aftermath with alqaeta. Second we did find WMD's. Third same one as you i just pay better attention.

No, I'm not thinking about the "aftermath." We knew beforehand was that we were going to be there for awhile. We weren't just going in, overthrowing Saddam, and leaving. Nutjobs in the administration may have thought it would only be 6 months, but they still knew we would be there after we defeated Iraqi military. The WMD's we found were degraded chemical munitions from the Iran-Iraq war, nothing from recent times, though, and hardly the mobile weapon labs that the administration invented to gain support for the war. No modern chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons where found nor any methods of producing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Iraq_Survey_G roup It's quite clear you pay as much attention as an ostrich with its head in the sand, though.


I agree fuck bush to but my point was don't try to give clinton a pass because he hide behind a blow job scandle the whole time.

I don't think anyone was saying Clinton was perfect. What was being said was that in comparison to the colossal fuck-ups by Bush, Clinton's mistakes are hardly remembered.


As for the phone the arguement has been made on both sides of and freedom of speech has been used many times as an argument as well as a violation of privacy. The rest we agree on. My facts are straight as ussual.

No, your "facts" are wrong because they make no sense. How can it be an infringement on free speech if it does nothing to infringe on your right to say what you want? I know we are on the same side on this particular issue, but I think the way you are approaching it is wrong. It is not a violation of free speech, it is a violation of your privacy, which you have a reasonable expectation of when talking on the phone as long as you are not in public.


Really your not thinking of alqaeta? If the Iraq army has been defeated and we aren't fighting them anymore then who are we fighting there?

Civilian militias. They formed after the botched occupation and de-bathification of the government and Iraqi military.

You said no wmd's now you say no modern wmd's. There are not suppost to be any in the country period. Just having the cash was a violation of the treaty and grounds to reenter Iraq. You can go round and round but it is very clear they are to have none and they did. I'm not trying to justify what happened just saying you were incorrect saying that there were none.

It's the equivalent of finding a joint vs. 10 kilos of Mary. We found a joint but were promised we'd find the opposite thus negating the whole reason we went there to begin with. Our allies and us were in imminent danger, remember? ::)

As for his mistakes they will be forgotten as well. Thats just how people are. Something more interesting will come up.

I think Billy boy's blowjob will fade faster than the memory of 4000+ service men and womem who died needlessly.

My facts are wrong because you say so is that what your trying to get at? I agree with you but the arguement has been made for freedom of speech as well.

You argue semantics in a black and white setting. WMD's being proof of that. You're wrong in real world context.



First a militia is a militia. It's a simple term applied to groups that dont fight under a flag. ie terrorists groups like al quata.

Second i cant say your wrong on the pretext of why we went but i also cant say that there are no wmd's at all.

Third if you think Billy Bobs blow job is going to disapear faster they why does every one remember it so vividly? Lets not forget not to many presidents have been impeached. If you remember correctly the total up to now is 2.

Yet another post your wrong because i say so. Sorry guys it gonna take more than that.

triggerhappy2005
03-05-10, 06:23 PM
LOL one at a time. First what was sent in did the job just fine. Your thinking of the aftermath with alqaeta. Second we did find WMD's. Third same one as you i just pay better attention.

No, I'm not thinking about the "aftermath." We knew beforehand was that we were going to be there for awhile. We weren't just going in, overthrowing Saddam, and leaving. Nutjobs in the administration may have thought it would only be 6 months, but they still knew we would be there after we defeated Iraqi military. The WMD's we found were degraded chemical munitions from the Iran-Iraq war, nothing from recent times, though, and hardly the mobile weapon labs that the administration invented to gain support for the war. No modern chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons where found nor any methods of producing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Iraq_Survey_G roup It's quite clear you pay as much attention as an ostrich with its head in the sand, though.


I agree fuck bush to but my point was don't try to give clinton a pass because he hide behind a blow job scandle the whole time.

I don't think anyone was saying Clinton was perfect. What was being said was that in comparison to the colossal fuck-ups by Bush, Clinton's mistakes are hardly remembered.


As for the phone the arguement has been made on both sides of and freedom of speech has been used many times as an argument as well as a violation of privacy. The rest we agree on. My facts are straight as ussual.

No, your "facts" are wrong because they make no sense. How can it be an infringement on free speech if it does nothing to infringe on your right to say what you want? I know we are on the same side on this particular issue, but I think the way you are approaching it is wrong. It is not a violation of free speech, it is a violation of your privacy, which you have a reasonable expectation of when talking on the phone as long as you are not in public.


Really your not thinking of alqaeta? If the Iraq army has been defeated and we aren't fighting them anymore then who are we fighting there?

Civilian militias. They formed after the botched occupation and de-bathification of the government and Iraqi military.

You said no wmd's now you say no modern wmd's. There are not suppost to be any in the country period. Just having the cash was a violation of the treaty and grounds to reenter Iraq. You can go round and round but it is very clear they are to have none and they did. I'm not trying to justify what happened just saying you were incorrect saying that there were none.

It's the equivalent of finding a joint vs. 10 kilos of Mary. We found a joint but were promised we'd find the opposite thus negating the whole reason we went there to begin with. Our allies and us were in imminent danger, remember? ::)

As for his mistakes they will be forgotten as well. Thats just how people are. Something more interesting will come up.

I think Billy boy's blowjob will fade faster than the memory of 4000+ service men and womem who died needlessly.

My facts are wrong because you say so is that what your trying to get at? I agree with you but the arguement has been made for freedom of speech as well.

You argue semantics in a black and white setting. WMD's being proof of that. You're wrong in real world context.



First a militia is a militia. It's a simple term applied to groups that dont fight under a flag. ie terrorists groups like al quata.

Nope, parsing my sentence won't work. Al Aqaida commit a small proportion of the attacks in Iraq. It's the Iraqi civilian population fighting an insurgency against what they consider an occupying force, similar to when our forefathers fought the British. We too fought under no flag.

Second i cant say your wrong on the pretext of why we went but i also cant say that there are no wmd's at all.

Context means everything. WMD's were used as a pretext in going to war. The argument was framed in such a way as to an imminent danger to us or our allies using CAPABLE WMD's. Some old, inert shit from a decade ago doesn't count. Context!

Third if you think Billy Bobs blow job is going to disapear faster they why does every one remember it so vividly? Lets not forget not to many presidents have been impeached. If you remember correctly the total up to now is 2.

Partisan politics. He remained in office, so he wasn't fully impeached. Either way, his mistakes pale in comparison to Bush's.

Yet another post your wrong because i say so. Sorry guys it gonna take more than that.

No, I proved you wrong through intellectual reasoning.

deathgodusmc
03-05-10, 09:09 PM
LOL one at a time. First what was sent in did the job just fine. Your thinking of the aftermath with alqaeta. Second we did find WMD's. Third same one as you i just pay better attention.

No, I'm not thinking about the "aftermath." We knew beforehand was that we were going to be there for awhile. We weren't just going in, overthrowing Saddam, and leaving. Nutjobs in the administration may have thought it would only be 6 months, but they still knew we would be there after we defeated Iraqi military. The WMD's we found were degraded chemical munitions from the Iran-Iraq war, nothing from recent times, though, and hardly the mobile weapon labs that the administration invented to gain support for the war. No modern chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons where found nor any methods of producing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Iraq_Survey_G roup It's quite clear you pay as much attention as an ostrich with its head in the sand, though.


I agree fuck bush to but my point was don't try to give clinton a pass because he hide behind a blow job scandle the whole time.

I don't think anyone was saying Clinton was perfect. What was being said was that in comparison to the colossal fuck-ups by Bush, Clinton's mistakes are hardly remembered.


As for the phone the arguement has been made on both sides of and freedom of speech has been used many times as an argument as well as a violation of privacy. The rest we agree on. My facts are straight as ussual.

No, your "facts" are wrong because they make no sense. How can it be an infringement on free speech if it does nothing to infringe on your right to say what you want? I know we are on the same side on this particular issue, but I think the way you are approaching it is wrong. It is not a violation of free speech, it is a violation of your privacy, which you have a reasonable expectation of when talking on the phone as long as you are not in public.


Really your not thinking of alqaeta? If the Iraq army has been defeated and we aren't fighting them anymore then who are we fighting there?

Civilian militias. They formed after the botched occupation and de-bathification of the government and Iraqi military.

You said no wmd's now you say no modern wmd's. There are not suppost to be any in the country period. Just having the cash was a violation of the treaty and grounds to reenter Iraq. You can go round and round but it is very clear they are to have none and they did. I'm not trying to justify what happened just saying you were incorrect saying that there were none.

It's the equivalent of finding a joint vs. 10 kilos of Mary. We found a joint but were promised we'd find the opposite thus negating the whole reason we went there to begin with. Our allies and us were in imminent danger, remember? ::)

As for his mistakes they will be forgotten as well. Thats just how people are. Something more interesting will come up.

I think Billy boy's blowjob will fade faster than the memory of 4000+ service men and womem who died needlessly.

My facts are wrong because you say so is that what your trying to get at? I agree with you but the arguement has been made for freedom of speech as well.

You argue semantics in a black and white setting. WMD's being proof of that. You're wrong in real world context.



First a militia is a militia. It's a simple term applied to groups that dont fight under a flag. ie terrorists groups like al quata.

Nope, parsing my sentence won't work. Al Aqaida commit a small proportion of the attacks in Iraq. It's the Iraqi civilian population fighting an insurgency against what they consider an occupying force, similar to when our forefathers fought the British. We too fought under no flag.

Second i cant say your wrong on the pretext of why we went but i also cant say that there are no wmd's at all.

Context means everything. WMD's were used as a pretext in going to war. The argument was framed in such a way as to an imminent danger to us or our allies using CAPABLE WMD's. Some old, inert shit from a decade ago doesn't count. Context!

Third if you think Billy Bobs blow job is going to disapear faster they why does every one remember it so vividly? Lets not forget not to many presidents have been impeached. If you remember correctly the total up to now is 2.

Partisan politics. He remained in office, so he wasn't fully impeached. Either way, his mistakes pale in comparison to Bush's.

Yet another post your wrong because i say so. Sorry guys it gonna take more than that.

No, I proved you wrong through intellectual reasoning.



Really? I cant seem to find any stories where the iraqi people are the ones fighting our soldiers. Plenty of insurgent groups which would not be an iraqi civilian militia. If you would like to get technical they are all called illegal combatants because they are an offensive force not a defensive force which is what a militia is. FYI we did fight under a flag against the brits remember it has 13 starts on it.

Once again you continue to ramble about some bullshit ignoring what was said all together.

No he was impeached then it was overturned by the senate. I dont agree i think he is to blame for why so many americans are out of work right now. Of course that's my opinion verses your opinion. LOL intellectual reasoning no sir you have proved nothing wrong. You proved you wish to look the other way when the facts of the matter do not meet your agenda or side of a discussion.

hawgballs
03-06-10, 02:23 AM
An oath that ends with "So help me God" ? Unfortunately I did swear such an oath that doesn't coincide with my religious beliefs.
It has nothing to do with "religious beliefs" numbnuts. It has everything to do with what You swore to defend........ You know, that old relic, what did you call it? Oh yeah, the Constitution.

Gumby
03-06-10, 05:59 AM
Regardless of which side of the political isle you sit on, if you truly believe in 4th Amendment rights, then you cannot support the Patriot Act or extending it. It is big, centralized, power-hungry government at its worst. It was wrong when Bush signed it into law, it is wrong that it is being extended now. I am no Obama fan, but this was something I thought he and I agreed upon. So much for change :3

SlimStumpy
03-06-10, 11:35 AM
unfortunately so. That's the trouble with power. Once you have it, no matter who you are, it doesn't usually seem like such a great idea to let it go.